R' Chaim Brisker held that according to the Rambam a denial of the ikkarim due to misunderstanding is still considered apikorsus -- it is not the crime of denial which defines one as a heretic (in which case the context and cause of the crime would be relevant considerations), but rather it is the affirmative belief in the ikkarim which defines one as a member of the Jewish people. Excuses cannot subsitute for the affirmation of belief.
My son is learning Perek Cheilek and I noticed an interesting chiddush in the Birchas Avraham (Sanhedrim 91) based on this approach. Since the ikkarim must be affirmatively believed, he writes that there is an obligation of chinuch to teach children before bar mitzvah the meaning of the ikkarim so they understand and accept these beliefs. Unfortunately, most schools do not have a curriculum designed to accomplish this goal (yes, parents can do it, but parents can also teach kids gemara, halacha, and Tanach and schools go over that). It would be a nice idea for someone to pull together a program aimed at elementary school age children to accomplish this goal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
absolutely! I blogged about this a while back, here. A point raised in the comment section there was "Its nice in theory (possibly) but this is giving free reign to educators to insert their dogma into students heads. I don't think any MO school would take that risk considering how most have an abundance of Haredi staff."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, without any insult intended, I shudder to think of Frum Kiruv Maniac teaching this class.
kt,
josh
That's FREELANCE kiruv maniac, Josh. :)
ReplyDeleteIn any event, the Rambam himself in Moreh I:35 suggests that children from the earliest ages should have certain basic beliefs about G-d ingrained in their minds:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp045.htm
"Do not think that what we have laid down in the preceding chapters on the importance, obscurity, and difficulty of the subject, and its unsuitableness for communication to ordinary persons, includes the doctrine of God's incorporeality and His exemption from all affections (πάθη). This is not the case. For in the same way as all people must be informed, and even children must be trained in the belief that God is One, and that none besides Him is to be worshipped, so must all be taught by simple authority that God is incorporeal; that there is no similarity in any way whatsoever between Him and His creatures: that His existence is not like the existence of His creatures, His life not like that of any living being, His wisdom not like the wisdom of the wisest of men; and that the difference between Him and His creatures is not merely quantitative, but absolute [as between two individuals of two different classes]: I mean to say that all must understand that our wisdom and His, or our power and His do not differ quantitatively or qualitatively, or in a similar manner; for two things, of which the one is strong and the other weak, are necessarily similar, belong to the same class, and can be included in one definition. The same is the case with an other comparisons: they can only be made between two things belonging to the same class, as has been shown in works on Natural Science. Anything predicated of God is totally different from our attributes; no definition can comprehend both; therefore His existence and that of any other being totally differ from each other, and the term existence is applied to both homonymously, as I shall explain.
This suffices for the guidance of children and of ordinary persons who must believe that there is a Being existing, perfect, incorporeal, not inherent in a body as a force in it-God, who is above all kinds of deficiency, above A affections. But the question concerning the attributes of God, their inadmissibility, and the meaning of those attributes which are ascribed to Him; concerning the Creation, His Providence, in providing for everything; concerning His will, His perception, His knowledge of everything; concerning prophecy and its various degrees: concerning the meaning of His names which imply the idea of unity, though they are more than one; all these things are very difficult problems, the true "Secrets of the Law" the "secrets" mentioned so frequently in the books of the Prophets, and in the words of our Teachers, the subjects of which we should only mention the headings of the chapters, as we have already stated, and only in the presence of a person satisfying the above-named conditions."
>>>this is giving free reign to educators to insert their dogma into students heads.
ReplyDeleteGee, and I thought that's exactly why we send our kids to yeshiva!
What's all this shabbos, kashrus, prayer, and talmud study stuff?
it depends on the educator. an unsophisticated approach would be counterproductive, IMHO, especially in this domain, where the undercurrent is "you may not *think* X.
ReplyDeletealso, right now many MO schools are staffed by chareidim. while this is useful and good, because we have the same Torah, there certainly are hashkafic differences. e.g. approach to the Jewish state. it is good to be exposed to other viewpoints. but where there is likelihood this will be taught as a catechism, and that there is no room for dissenting opinion, and in order to teach students that they may *not* think, no, I do not think it would be a good thing.
let me pose you a practical example. rav kanievsky reportedly and purportedly said that one is an apikores if he disagrees with the geocentric model of the universe. (that is, one MUST believe that the sun goes around the earth.) would you like a rebbe in a school convincing your child that this was the case, and that he could not even question otherwise for fear of being a heretic?
kt,
josh
"It would be a nice idea for someone to pull together a program aimed at elementary school age children to accomplish this goal. "
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check with Torah Umesorah. IIRC, R. Shmuel Kamenetski mentioned in an article (about a year ago in one of the frum magazines) that TUM had developed such a curriculum.
I recently saw in the Rosh Amanah of the Abarbanel that he holds like R. Chaim Brisker(really the Rambam) that "nebeach an apikores, etc."(he also gives an explanation, perhaps similar to what you say).
ReplyDeleteThere are other shittos in Rishonim, see footnotes # 29 and # 30 in R. Yitzchak Blau's TUM article, below.
The question is also how to apply "nebeach an apikores, etc.", b'zman hazeh. Is everyone with doubts, today,(or anytime) an apikores? This was an issue even for some Yeshivah bachurim in the Stiepler's times, as seen from his writings(Krinah Digarta and Chayei Olam).
Another question is how well the frum community does in answering questions. Is it rigorously on par with the Rambam, Doros Harishonim, Rav Hoffman, etc? Perhaps the fault is not the individual, but the community for taking an approach of sheltering people to protect them from doubt, and not doing research on par with the above gedolim? I don't know enough to answer this.
Another issue is at what point does asking questions make one an apikores?
Kiruv claims that "all questions are welcome"(see the end of R. Yaakov Salomon's excellent artcile below), but I sometimes wonder how comfortable some people *really* are with questions they can't easily answer!
There are also gedolim, today, who encourage Frum people with doubts and perhaps realize it's totally normal(even if one says that emunah is inborn, as per Rambam in Iggeres Teiman on "vgam becha yaaminu", there is still the concept of bechirah. Chovos Halevovos in Shaar Yichud Hamaaseh speaks possible even of his own challenges (!), as per R. Y. Levovitz in Daas Torah, Vzos Habercaha; the Steipler and R. Shaach also mention bechirah regarding Iggeres Teiman).
R. Moshe Wolfson of Emunas Yisrael was recently quoted with words of encouragement in a Jewish Observer article. Similarly, see the encouraging quotation from an Moetzes member in RYH's Mishpacha # 169 article, linked below.
Ultimately, applying "nebeach an apikores, etc." involves judgment of the mind and heart, which really only a bochein lev u'klayos can do.
References:
http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TUJ%2012%20Blau%20Yitzchak%20179-191%20QX.pdf
http://www.rabbihorowitz.com/PYes/ArticleDetails.cfm?Book_ID=887&ThisGroup_ID=346&Type=Article
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/society/Just_Ask.asp
All good points.
ReplyDelete>>>Another question is how well the frum community does in answering questions.
Which is why I have written more than once that yeshivos need to devote time to teaching machshava in an organized meaningful way. R' Kook wrote on this as well, and I think the dati-leumi yeshivos have incorporated the study of the Rishonim and ba'alei machshava and chassidus into their regular seder. Too bad others have not yet followed to any great extent.
"Which is why I have written more than once that yeshivos need to devote time to teaching machshava in an organized meaningful way."
ReplyDeleteThey are trying. There are seminars of Project Chazon for yeshiva kids, but seminars are not substitute for giving over confidence in hashkafos which comes from broad exposure to original classical sources.
My point was a little different. Take some of the Frum online skeptics. They may have been exposed to certain academic histories, etc. A typical kiruv seminar whether for BT or for a sheltered FFB yeshivah bachurim might not work for them. They need something custom made for their exposure. It's a separate issue from yeshivah bachurim.
I don't know the answer and am not absolving anyone(there is always a level of nekudas habechirah), but the response of the generation is certainly an issue when considering "nebach an apikores":
Here is a quote from RYA on Cross Currents:
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/11/24/why-we-are-all-id-dummies/
"...So much confusion abounds because for the first time in hundreds of years – perhaps ever? – we do not have Torah luminaries who have devoted themselves to taking on the challenge posed by general culture. (I do not fault them in any manner or form for this...The same holds true in other areas, such as archeology and Biblical criticism. The standard conclusions are wrong – but the phenomena noted call for explanations, and no one in the Torah world cares enough to provide them. People who have studied too much to just ignore these phenomena then often find it more satisfying to go far outside Torah circles for enlightenment.
I recall Rav Bulman zt”l telling us about those in the nineteenth century who threw themselves into the work of answering the new Higher Criticism, especially Rav Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKsav VeHakabbalah), the Netziv (Haamek Davar), and Rav SR Hirsch. The Malbim had started Artzos HaChaim – and could have written what would have become the Mishnah Berurah – but understood that he had to make clear the organic connection between Torah she-b’ksav and the Oral Law that was so cynically rejected by the Reformers.
Imagine if we had a Rav Dovid Zvi Hoffman today, doing for biology what he did for Biblical criticism. David and I might have more important things to argue about."
Of course this means that if FKM's rosh yeshivah is spending time writing a book on Science and Torah, one must give credit, whether or not one likes its conclusions :)
Let alone the fact that writing a book insisting that the world is 6000 years old is not going to help anyone - it's not as though his reasons for writing it are to help confused teens. Like FKM, he has a real mad-on for Slifkin, over Slifkin's public letter to him.
ReplyDeleteWow, what poor mind-reading skills you have, Saperstein. He never read that letter.
ReplyDelete>>>no one in the Torah world cares enough to provide them.
ReplyDeleteIn the yeshiva world secular knowledge is seen as having at best a utilitarian value to get a job -- it is not respected as chochma in its own right. From that perspective no conflict with Torah is real or serious and no answers are needed. The educational system is not geared to producing the likes of R' Ahron Lichtenstein, someone who appreciates "chochma bagoyim" but demonstrates that it need not diminish one's emunah and avodah.
Part of the problem is the gedolim come off as totally ignorant of culture, science, and secular knowledge, and are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as not having enough of a handle on any of these issues to say anything meaningful. For example, Josh wrote of one of the current gedolim who believes in a geocentric model of the universe. Contrast that with R' Soloveitchik, for example, who was able to shape American modern orthodoxy because he spoke its language and understood its culture.
He never read the letter???!!!
ReplyDeleteHe gives three shiurim slandering Slifkin and his books, and Slifkin writes to him politely pointing out all the lies, which can be easily verified by anyone with access to the books, and he doesn't even read the letter???!!!
Doesn't that bother you?!
>In the yeshiva world secular knowledge is seen as having at best a utilitarian value to get a job -- it is not respected as chochma in its own right.
ReplyDeleteI know that, but don't they feel a part of the Gra's mesorah on chochma? When and what are the rules for ignoring the Gra?
(I ask this here, since it is possible my belated comment in the Friday thread on Parsha Blog doesn't get noticed.)
>>>don't they feel a part of the Gra's mesorah on chochma? When and what are the rules for ignoring the Gra?
ReplyDeleteYou are right -- in that respect they have not lived up to the past and we suffer the consequences.
When and what are the rules for ignoring the Gra?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it obvious? When the Gra agrees with the Gedolim, we follow the Gra. When the Gra doesn't agree with the Gedolim, we don't follow him.
Isn't it obvious?
ReplyDeleteThe Gra did not set any agendas for wide-scale Jewish education outside his circle. Rav Chaim Volozhin made it much wider.
When the Gra's values and priorities can be safely translated into mass yeshivah education, the leaders of the masses will adopt it. When it can't, they won't.
The Gra didn't say his view on chochma was a chiyuv on anybody. Yechidim can certainly adopt his more rarefied hanhagos and deos without anyone looking askance, but it doesn't automatically make it good public policy for the superficial masses.
Actually, Shlomie, yes, those are the rules. As I explained in previous posts, it is the consensus of chachmei hamesorah of your time that determine the ground rules. If the consensus of poskim rule like other achronim against the GR"A in hilchos Shabbos, just as an example, we act accordingly and do not worry that we are mechalel Shabbos. Why do you think this area is any different?
ReplyDeleteThe meta question of why gedolim pasken like a GR"A in some cases and against him in others is not necessariy always obvious.
Chaim, when did "consensus of Gedolim" become a determining factor? Like it or not, we do not have a Sanhedrin, which means that acharei rabim l'hatos doesn't really apply. Those who follow the psak of particular g'dolim will do so, and of course where there is a "consensus" to speak of, that will impact a large number of people. But if my Rav paskens differently from the consensus . . . well, I'm not only entitled to follow my Rav, I'm required to.
ReplyDeleteIn the absence of a Sanhedrin, speaking of the "consensus of G'dolim" as though it is an effective substitute for m'sorah which can render all those "outside the consensus" also "outside the m'sorah" is simply working from false principles to a false (and dangerous) conclusion
>You are right -- in that respect they have not lived up to the past and we suffer the consequences.
ReplyDeleteKol ha-kavod for this response, but aren't you getting a little more worked up about the other kind of ignoring the Gra than this? The other thing is ultimately very much about correct beliefs. This is about the ability to learn. Provided we are talking about rationalists who are truly observant, not looking for shortcuts, talmide chachomim and in other ways good Jews, isn't the difference of opinion about how to understand a Gemara ultimately more trivial?
FKM, the Gra also didn't make his view of aggadah a chiyuv on anyone. The point in this discussion isn't chiyuvim, but what do we mean when we say we follow the Gra, R. Akiva Eger et al, when in reality we follow a little bit here and a little bit there? I'm saying, stop using the authority of such as the Gra, at least when trying to impose a view (such as a hidden-meaning approach to aggadah) on others.
The particular interpretation of the gemara is indeed trivial. The larger issue is the danger of unbridled rationalism. As seen from some of the other comments, we have "rationalists" who I am sure keep shabbos and eat kosher but do not believe in a ma'amad har sinai which gave us a complete torah, and we have "rationalists" who think the entire chassidic world, ba'alei machshava, even the mystical writings of GR"A and R' Chaim Volozhiner are all avodah zarah. In my reading of discussions in the blogopshere more often than not the championing of the "rationalist" approach is not done by "truly observant, not looking for shortcuts, talmide chachomim" but by people who have no qualms about rejecting even ikkarim based only on their own lack of understanding or belief.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, of course being an ignoramous has its own dangers and causes its own damage. If more talmidei chachamim were respected as not just pious but also as wise we would not be in these straits.
We have irrationalists who are shoel ov ve-yedoni. I son't see your posts about that plague.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think it is fair to stereotype people based on what goes on in the blogosphere, itself a contentious medium (don't they say not to discuss religion or politics in polite society?). I know of quiet rationalists who don't debate and get in anyone's dace, who do fit my description, yet don't respect Chassidus any more than Chassidim respect rationalism, as they and the like are tarte de-sasre.
In any case, I agree that avoda zara-hunters who are not particularly pious are rather silly, but what is one to do when one honestly sees X, Y or Z as avoda zara? Why must they hold their tongue and keep their peace, when people who see rationalism as a short ride to heresy feel no such need?
we have "rationalists" who think the entire chassidic world, ba'alei machshava, even the mystical writings of GR"A and R' Chaim Volozhiner are all avodah zarah
ReplyDeleteChaim,
Do you think we have more or less of those than we have people who are convinced rationalists are heretics and outside the mesorah? Because I'd bet we have more of the latter than the former.
More to the point, if your criticism of rationalism is that some of its adherents err . . . Well, then I submit that your complaint ought to be directed to the adherent, not the approach. No matter what the approach, we are all human. The corollary of that is no matter what the approach, any number of us will err.
>>>We have irrationalists who are shoel ov ve-yedoni. I son't see your posts about that plague.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen that, so I have not posted about it. If I am missing something, please send me a link. I have not gotten a single comment of that type, but have gotten the denial of ikkarim.
well, there is a popular belief in the messages of the autistics, which certainly seems like ov and yideoni, especially where it comes to asking about halacha or the future. and there is the practice of casting lead. see here. i saw in a comment thread somewhere that rav kanievsky's daughter practices this.
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
also, though i am not sure this is what you intended, why is a denial of the authenticity of kabbalah a denial of the ikkarim? (i am reminded of the famous dispute over whether one may argue against talmudic midrashim or whether that makes one an apikores.)
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
Not to mention the "open a sefer at random"/"write your question down and insert it into the sefer at random" approach to answering questions; the "rebbe is coming back" problem in lubavitch (I have relatives who went to his funeral to see him get up, and who came back saying "then what is Torah for" when he didn't); Rav Nachman getting chamishi at some breslover shuls . . .
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, if you want to go looking for people making serious haskafic and halachic mistakes, you can certainly find them among the anti-rationalists as well.
And note, that's no more an indictment of anti-rationalism than Chaim's point is of rationalism. The two simply lend themselves to different mistakes; the fact that there are humans involved ensures that at least some people will make them
>>>why is a denial of the authenticity of kabbalah a denial of the ikkarim?
ReplyDelete1. I am referring specifically to the denial of the Torah being given at ma'amad har sinai.
2. The Rambam counts as an apikores someone who is 'makchish magideha' and denies Rabbinic authority
3. Whether or not someone who rejects kabalah is technically an apikores is secondary to the larger point: someone whose own "seichel" carries more weight than the views of *countless* tzadikim and talmidei chachaim is navigating Judaism with the wrong compass. Why does every Tom, Dick, and Harry think he can decide inyanei hashkafa without consideration to what the giants of our and previous generations say?
I would not have a hava amina of paying attention to a blog comment about R' Chaim Kanievsky's daughter without other corroborating evidence. And I am not aware of gedolim or talmidei chachamim who seek advice from autistics.
>>>The fact is, if you want to go looking for people making serious haskafic and halachic mistakes, you can certainly find them among the anti-rationalists as well.
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of any ikkarei emunah the practices you describe violate; please see R' Aviner's discussion here: http://www.ravaviner.com/2009/05/igrot-kodesh-holy-letters-of.html
Do you really think the worst excesses of what you describe are comparable to outright denial that all of Torah originated from Sinai?
I am beginning to wonder why a rationalist would follow the rulings of the Talmud at all. Here is a book composed by people who believed in all kinds of magic (e.g. zugos), crazy medicinal remedies, who reconstructed texts in ways that deviated from their original meaning and intent (e.g. aukimtos of braysos), whose beliefs differed greatly from those of the Bible (just read J. Kugel), who engaged in hagiogrpahy rather than deal with the historical reality of their heroes (e.g. see Abarbanel on whether David really sinned or not), who read the Biblical text without regard to anachonism and who devised all kinds of far-flung explanations to resolve textual problems (midrash vs. pshat), who knew no more science than their contemporaries -- yet, you think these same people had perfect insight and intution into the eternal laws (is there really such a thing?) of human psychology, law, and morals. That view of the Talmud strikes me as very, very odd.
>Do you really think the worst excesses of what you describe are comparable to outright denial that all of Torah originated from Sinai?
ReplyDeletePerhaps these things are various kinds of divination and avoda zara prohibited by the Torah. That's not as severe? The Torah doesn't really address denial of Sinai in terms of a prohibition, not that I'm making a determination that the prohibition is de-rabbanan. But the point is, with your empathy for irrationalists and your hostility toward rationalists (and again, here you are conflating skeptical bloggers with Orthodox rationalists, a possibly annoying, yet different breed) is affecting your judgment. You don't see a big deal with violating things the Torah prohibits in the strongest possible terms, presumably because the people who do it look very frum, seem very committed to Torah and are entirely unaware that they are into magic. It may be that the reason why their flirtations with kishuf are tolerated is precisely because of that: they don't wear bobby pins in their yarmulkes and they shprache the shprache, and that's seen as highly important, so a blind eye is turned. But don't be surprised that people are calling them out on these things and saying "hey, that's divination, that's conculting the dead, etc."
"I am beginning to wonder why a rationalist would follow the rulings of the Talmud at all."
ReplyDeleteThe dangers of rationalisim is an age-old issue going back to Rishonim. What might have changed, is that post-Haskalah challenges are different than pre-Haskalah one's. Also, the Torah world has enjoyed success by strengthening Judaism from within and with its kiruv methods.
See RNS's posting here whether rationalism is futile:
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/03/drawing-line-is-rationalism-futile.html
My questions to Chaim B. is 1)why is an either or issue and 2) why about contemporary Rabbonim's opinions?
In other words, one may disagree with RNS's championing rationalism as an alternative to the yeshivah world's hashkafa, but, what about a middle ground? Like it or not, R. Avroham b. Harambam, etc. was accepted to an extent before the Ban. Why not go back to a status quo, instead of saying 'lets's reject it all as a gezirah "shema yavo l'apikorsus mamesh"?
Second, have you spoken to rabbonim about the issue? Granted, although RNS has his rebbeim, he has not told us to what extent they agree with every single posting of his blog, for example(I assume they didn't review it).
However, I am not convinced that all rabbonim today totally reject R Avroham b. Harambam for everyone(I've spoken to at least two qualified rabbonim, but there is no point in quoting anonymous people for specific shittos).
I quoted R. Dessler who spoke of the Rambam giving a second approach for those who need it.
Perhaps you just disagree with championing rationalism as a full-fledged shittah, but a person can fully believe in R. Avroham b. Harambam and kabbalah, and not champion rationalism as a "full-fledged shittah"(I suppose one would have to define the gedarim of this).
Finally, I question the approach of rejecting rationalism because it leads to issues with Kugel, etc. Those issues need to be dealt with, and even if one rejects R. Avroham b. Haramabm, one must deal with them! This would be like saying that R. Dovid Zvi Hoffman needn't write his seforim because we have the Kuzari, or because we can just make a gezirah and reject R. Avroham b. Harambam.
"someone whose own "seichel" carries more weight than the views of *countless* tzadikim and talmidei chachaim is navigating Judaism with the wrong compass."
ReplyDeletepoor rambam and gra...
kt,
josh
"And I am not aware of gedolim or talmidei chachamim who seek advice from autistics."
ReplyDeletebut they endorsed the autistics, which is leading the hamon am to follow them down the wrong path. are you worried about the hamon am or about the leaders? what about in terms of the ikkarim?
the comment i saw was matter of fact, as if it was a well known phenomenon. and anyway, read the article in the blog post i linked to. is it favorable of the practice for the chareidi hamon am, or not? why don't we find the Gedolim coming out forcefully against it?
kt,
josh
Josh,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to note RSRH's critcism in Nineteen Letters of people who use Kabbalah as a magical manipulation of higher spheres. There is what to criticize of that today, as well.
Two caveats:
1) RSRH criticized Rambam too(but held of some of RNS's Science/Torah opinions, unless we dismiss Hirsch's writings as forgeies by Maskilim, or just plain-out reject RSRH's shittos because our generation doesn't need it).
2) R Elias in Nineteen Letters and R. Klugman in his biography demonstrate that Hirsch held of Kabbalah and even used it in his commentaries--he was objecting to its misuse.
My conjecture: It may be that the reason why their flirtations with kishuf are tolerated is precisely because....they don't wear bobby pins in their yarmulkes and they shprache the shprache, and that's seen as highly important, so a blind eye is turned.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, these practices are really not new. Anyone who has read any kind of historical works about Jewish magic and superstition knows that these contemporary vestiges pale in order of magnitude to the deep entrenchment and involvement in these kinds of things among the hamon am and rabbanim alike for centuries.
>R Elias in Nineteen Letters and R. Klugman in his biography demonstrate that Hirsch held of Kabbalah and even used it in his commentaries--he was objecting to its misuse.
ReplyDeleteR. Hirsch was not a rationalist, and anyone who thinks he was is confusing bowties and German with rationalism.
In any case, his appreciation for kabbalah dovetailed with his view of Judaism as a religion of symbols. Kabbalah is nothing if not rich in symbolism.
"R. Hirsch was not a rationalist, and anyone who thinks he was is confusing bowties and German with rationalism."
ReplyDeleteSo this means that one can hold of R. Slifkin's Science and Torah opinions(to the extent they jive with RSRH) without being a "rationalist"... :)
Well, of course. Since when does being a rationalist consist of "the theory of evolution may not be incompatible with the Torah?"
ReplyDelete"Since when does being a rationalist consist of "the theory of evolution may not be incompatible with the Torah?"
ReplyDeleteThat's the way I think it's been portrayed by RNS. But I'll let him clarify how he views RSRH.
I see rationalism in degrees rather than either or, "rationalist" or "mystic". I do think RSRH was more of a rationalist for accepting R. Avroham b. Harambam. To say that Chazal were infallible on science can at least be portrayed as a more mystical and less of a "rationalist" position, no?
Do you really think the worst excesses of what you describe are comparable to outright denial that all of Torah originated from Sinai?
ReplyDeleteNo. Do you really think that approaching Judaism rationally inherently leads to denial of Torah mi'Sinai?
I am beginning to wonder why a rationalist would follow the rulings of the Talmud at all . . .
1) I doubt I read the sugyas and understand Chazal's intent the same way you do
2) Beyond that, at a fundamental level, it doesn't matter. Lets assume for a second that everything the chachamim thought about human psychology and the way the world operates was wrong. Let's further assume that each and every g'zeirah was based on these misunderstandings.
Now, tell me - so what? How does or should that impact my approach to the g'zeiros and mitzvot?
We have a halachic system. We are expressly commanded by God to follow the halachic rulings of the chachamim whether their underlying reasons accurately correspond to reality or not. Therefore, as a practical matter, it's entirely irrelevant.
Of course today, when there's no Sanhedrin that can pasken for the entire klal yisrael, aseh l'cha rav takes over as the primary determinant of particular practices required of us, and the proliferation of dayos and minhagim is the result. But, so long as they remain true to the basic rules of halacha and judaism, all of them may be encompassed within eilu v'eilu.
And to be honest, Chaim, you've conceded that. Your objection throughout has been "the g'dolim set the mesora, and rejected the rationalism of the Rambam et al". But the g'dolim can't "set the mesorah" for anyone who doesn't hold like them, and they can't expand the ikkarei emunah to include their view of the world. There is no Sanhedrin today, and until there is, comments about "today's mesorah" as based on the "consensus of g'dolim" are at best a misnomer, and at worst a dangerous shift from the actual halacha of what constitutes a msorah binding on all of klal yisrael.
2. The Rambam counts as an apikores someone who is 'makchish magideha' and denies Rabbinic authority
"Denies rabbinic authority" is very, very, very different from "holds by a posek/rav who disagrees with mine"
Which, if you are implying that being outside the "consensus of g'dolim" makes you "makchish maggideha", is what you are saying.
Why does every Tom, Dick, and Harry think he can decide inyanei hashkafa without consideration to what the giants of our and previous generations say?
Why do you think that this view remotely resembles the reality? Are there no rabbonim who take a different view of halacha and hashkafa than the "consensus of g'dolim"? Are there no talmidei chachamim who disagree with you that "rationalism" is a dead philosophy? (you live in the Five Towns, so I know you know this is not so).
Chaim, I'll quote the words of my Rosh Yeshiva:
ReplyDelete"Judaism is a religion which satisfies man in many ways and on different levels. It is the purpose of these essays to show how Judaism appeals to the intellectual and creative part of man’s nature. If I have over-emphasized the rational element in Judaism it is because I have found this element so often overlooked. It is my intent to bring into sharp relief the unique character of Judaism in this regard. . . .
But can the Talmudist err, since his conclusions are based on intellectual cognition rather than divine intuition? The answer is that insofar as he employs the faculty of human reason he is as subject to error as any other investigator. Insofar as his religious goal is concerned, however, he cannot fail since he is not committed to any particular outcome, but rather, to the results of his investigation; be they correct or incorrect in actuality, he is obligated to follow the most knowledgeable position that human reason can ascertain at the time. This to the Talmudist is God’s will—to rely on his reason in interpreting the given data he has received. As a matter of fact, only reason may be used in Talmudic arbitration. Even if a great Prophet should inform a court of Talmudists discussing a particular matter that he knows through prophecy which view is correct. his statements would not be admissible as evidence. The Talmud illustrates this idea with a story in which God himself declares a decision made by the human court to be incorrect in actuality yet accepts it since it was arrived at in complete compliance with the human system of Talmudic investigation."
http://www.ybt.org/essays/rchait/talmudicjudaism.html
As a tanna d'mesayea, I'd like to bring R. Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz, as far as holding of a nuanced approach.
ReplyDeleteAs related in the Artscroll bigraphy, he once saw a bachur in the Lower East Side bookshop, frequented by Maskilim. He recommended to him Yavetz's Toldos Yisroel. Not only that, he himself spent a good part of his wedding dowry on the set of books.
R. Shraga Feivel could have simply rejected Tolodos Yisrael. After all, we have R Chaim Brisker's and R. Shimon's, mussar and chassidus, and even Hirsch which provide yeshivah bachurim with intellectual and emotional meaning; and Kiruv has an approach of making secular Jews frum. And R. Schwab does show problematic aspects of parts of Toldos Yisrael(essay on Chronology).
Obviously, R. Shraga Feivel did not think in those terms, and did not reject a set of books totally.
I understand, that today's era might be different, and that Yavetz may not have been targeting yeshiva bachrim. Nevertheless, it may be argued that we see balance in R. Shraga Feivel's approach, and that it may be foolish to reject what he felt was successful: different strokes for different folks within reason.
>>>It may be that the reason why their flirtations with kishuf are tolerated is precisely because of that: they don't wear bobby pins in their yarmulkes and they shprache the shprache
ReplyDeleteIn my comment I linked to a post on the topic by Rav Aviner -- a serugie wearing religious zionist.
>>>poor rambam and gra...
Josh, since when is everyone a Rambam or a GR"A? The question I asked is since when does a Jew sitting in his living room with some armchair literature and an Artscroll shas get the right to pasken ikkarei emunah for himself based on what s/he things is "emes"? There is no historical precedent.
>>>1)why is an either or issue
It's not.
>>>2) why about contemporary Rabbonim's opinions?
What about them? What contemporary gadol b'yisrael has gone on record susbsribing to the theory of evolution (just as an example)? How many seforim from gedolim in the past 300 years take a rationalist approach to theology? Not RYBS, not R' Kook (to take the leaders of the centrist/dati camp as examples), not too many. Why do you think this is?
More later. In particular want to respond to Mississippi about kishuf.
"What contemporary gadol b'yisrael has gone on record susbsribing to the theory of evolution (just as an example)?"
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not l'chatchilah but b'dieved. For b'dieved, one doesn't go on record. I once heard of a gadol that did not endorse the Artscoll Shas, but did not ban it either.
R. Shmeul Kaminetski supported Mysterious Creatures. To say that he didn't read or have some idea about the book(as indicated in the ban) is a joke and an embarassment to him.
Again, my guess is that Rabbonim whom you respect, whether from YU or to the right, are not willing to totally reject what R. Hoffman or RSRH held was ok, even if they don't hold of every bit of Slifkin's chiddushim(and neither do I necessarily, either).
If you are just sounding a cautionary note against rationalism, I too, agree(as does RNS, whom I obviously don't represent).
>My comment was, not surprisngly, oriented toward the reality of American Orthodoxy as we both know it. RZ in Israel is not MO in America.
ReplyDelete>Josh, since when is everyone a Rambam or a GR"A? The question I asked is since when does a Jew sitting in his living room with some armchair literature and an Artscroll shas get the right to pasken ikkarei emunah for himself based on what s/he things is "emes"? There is no historical precedent.
First of all, your dismissal of everyone with a different viewpoint (not to mention your continued conflation of the dreaded "rationalists" and Orthoskeptics in the J-blogosphere) is ridiculous. Secondly, you are right, perhaps, however I have commented about this phenomenon in what was once a popular post. I would rewrite it differently now, but the gist remains the same:
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2007/01/semi-talmidei-hakhomim-or-semi-amei-ha.html
Not only are "civilians" opining on these matters unprecedented, but so are civilians who dabble in Torah learning. And the reason why civilians who dabble in Torah learning is unprecedented is because the rabbis have exerted efforts to make Torah learning and, frankly, Torah dabbling, a priority among the masses in an unprecedented manner. If you don't want lay speculation about Perek Chelek, don't teach it to them in Daf Yomi, don't translate it in an easy to use format, and don't encourage them to learn Gemara.
BTW, Akiva, I was one of the guys who walked (as in years past) from the 5T to Far Rock with R' F___ to hear your Rosh Yeshiva's shiur on Shavuos. He is always a pleasure to hear.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of rationalism is to explain how the law accords with reality. Otherwise, what's so bad about believing in zugos and sheidim. Thinking Chazal erred but we blindly follow them anyway defeats the whole purpose.
>>>You don't see a big deal with violating things the Torah prohibits in the strongest possible terms, presumably because the people who do it look very frum, seem very committed to Torah and are entirely unaware that they are into magic.
It sounds like you are essentially saying I don't criticize everyone equally. I guess i can do an anti-magic post if that would make you happy : )
In a more serious vein, I see a distinction between what the 'hamon am' believes, which is nahrishkeit and perhaps should be more forcefully spoke out against, and what thinkers believe. I can only defend what I write; I am not the spokesperson or defender of the charedi world.
>>>First of all, your dismissal of everyone with a different viewpoint (not to mention your continued conflation of the dreaded "rationalists" and Orthoskeptics in the J-blogosphere) is ridiculous.
ReplyDeletePlease give me a break and don't force me to redact every comment. I am not dismissing everyone -- I am dismissing the uninformed reader.
I don't think it is dabbling in Torah learning alone; it is dabbling also in what appears to be "intellectual" writing and argument that has been equally popularzied.
>I don't think it is dabbling in Torah learning alone; it is dabbling also in what appears to be "intellectual" writing and argument that has been equally popularzied.
ReplyDeleteMy response remains the same. This was encouraged as well. Look, we're living in a different time and place. No longer do the rabbis give a complicated shiur which the audience can't follow twice a year. Now we have interlinear translations of Iggers Ha-ramban.
That said, now that you have spilled the beans and referred to a specific RY in Far Rockaway, I have a wider perspective on the issue. I know that he is widely considered a destructive force by the yeshivishe velt, perhaps because he is seen as vaguely related to that world. Hey, I never said these dogmatic rationalists aren't annoying, not that I mean anyone in particular.
>>>Again, my guess is that Rabbonim whom you respect, whether from YU or to the right, are not willing to totally reject what R. Hoffman or RSRH held was ok,
ReplyDeleteLook, there is a difference between rejection and saying there is a l'chatchila better way. I have written too many times to count already that if you want psak on kfira, ask your Rabbi. All I have said (too many times to count) is that rationalism has not been popular for centuries (just count the machshava seforim on the local Young Israel or Yeshiva bookshelf -- why is this a chiddush?) for what I think are very good reasons.
That has nothing to do with autistic children, with RNS books, or with the myriad of other topics that keep getting thrown in here.
>>>That said, now that you have spilled the beans and referred to a specific RY in Far Rockaway,
ReplyDeleteAkiva linked to his site so the cat was out of the bag, but I did not name him. Let's leave names out of it.
Unfortunately, living in Oceanside, I don't get to head back there for shiur on Shavuos. I miss that, and I envy you a bit :)
ReplyDeleteThe goal of rationalism is to explain how the law accords with reality. Otherwise, what's so bad about believing in zugos and sheidim. Thinking Chazal erred but we blindly follow them anyway defeats the whole purpose.
I don't know that it defeats the whole purpose (as noted in the essay, if the "purpose" is to come to the best possible conclusion from the data using reason, then that purpose is fulfilled whether or not, in some ultimately unknowable sense, the conclusions line up with reality). But that was really from a purely practical, halachic perspective in response to your question of "if they could be wrong, why follow the Talmud". Primarily, I doubt I read, say, the zug rishon zug sheini gemara in Sotah the way you do (if, that is, that's what you're referring to when you say "zugos")
I did not name him! I think you named where he lives.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know my opinion, I think there are very good reasons why rationalism isn't popular today, but pretty bad reasons why it wasn't popular for centuries. I think it could have been very well and good if rationalism was popular 3 or 400 years ago.
if, that is, that's what you're referring to when you say "zugos"
ReplyDeleteSee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugot#Other_uses_of_term_Zugot
"Josh, since when is everyone a Rambam or a GR"A?"
ReplyDeletepeople probably asked the same of the rambam and the gra. for example, the Gra was "slandered" about having the audacity to have his own kabbalistic opinions from his own powers of learning which were at odds with the Arizal. but some of the people engaged in this are people i respect for their knowledge of the relevant subject matter. i understand if you consider me one of the hamon am, of course.
a related note:
"someone whose own "seichel" carries more weight than the views of *countless* tzadikim and talmidei chachaim is navigating Judaism with the wrong compass"
tzaddikim is not necessarily relevant. but how many of those countless tzadikim and talmidei chachamim actually thought about the matter independently. for example, if you were brought up with kabbalah as an assumption, would you necessarily investigate its origin and authenticity. or would you just assume, and go along with the status quo. how many of those "countless" do you think read through Shadal's Vikuach and decided based on their sechel that the claims of kabbalah withstood the complaints? And what if many rabbis individuals did find problems, but because of your mindset (that only an apikores would go against the weight of tradition), they suppressed their own daas?
also, lehavdil, what would you say to a questioning Christian whose sechel told him Christianity was avodah zarah?
kt,
josh
I know that he is widely considered a destructive force by the yeshivishe velt . . .
ReplyDeleteas Chaim said, I linked to the site. I've also always had an extremely hard time understanding this view - frankly, some of the most dedicated, serious jews I know are products of that yeshiva, and the Kol Torah that emerges from it is simply tremendous.
But lets not get sidetracked into that discussion :)
"Look, there is a difference between rejection and saying there is a l'chatchila better way."
ReplyDeleteWe are not disagreeing on everything, although obviously you are more concerned than I am about the advocating of rationalism.
"The question I asked is since when does a Jew sitting in his living room with some armchair literature and an Artscroll shas get the right to pasken ikkarei emunah for himself based on what s/he things is "emes"? There is no historical precedent."
I see a good thing in these things being discussed on the internet, because it forces issues to be addressed, people to think, and the yeshivah world to be more intellectually honest. But there are obviously negatives with the internet, so overall, the web may be negative.
Bottom line, I'm not afraid of RNS's rationalism, nor of contemporary skepticsim. Yiddishkeit will have to find a way of dealing with it head-on.
"or with the myriad of other topics that keep getting thrown in here."
You have the right to limit discussion as narrow or as broad as you wish, although personally, I think the issues I've brought up are very much related; that's why I brought them up. I see L'affaire Slifkin in a very broad historical and sociological context.
I may have been passionate in arguing my comments, but I'd like to thank you for hosting the discussion and for your insights(whether I agree with them or not :) )
>as Chaim said, I linked to the site. I've also always had an extremely hard time understanding this view - frankly, some of the most dedicated, serious jews I know are products of that yeshiva, and the Kol Torah that emerges from it is simply tremendous.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, let's not get sidetracked, but if I may slip in one small response: this approach undermines the canon of yeshivishe gedolim and the hashkafos taught and disseminated by them. Serious, dedicated Jews are found in many agudos which are at odds with and present a challenge to the assumptions of the yeshiva velt, just as the yeshiva velt presents a challenge to the others.
Is there any indication that this internal Yeshiva World conflict is getter bigger?
ReplyDeleteThere was, is, and always will be, those in the Yeshiva world who are more independent-minded.
Maybe they're just getting more press today than before. This doesn't mean they are capable--or even have hopes- of presenting an alternative Yeshiva system.
"This doesn't mean they are capable--or even have hopes- of presenting an alternative Yeshiva system."
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
The only thing is the question of influence; the insular world responds to outside influences, whether the former offically recognizes it or not.
R. Berel Wein in his history of the Middle Ages describes the historical context in which the ikkarim needed to be fleshed out(from the organic Mesorah).
The practical question is how strong are the influences of the "more independent-minded", and what will be the response? Ignoring them, banning them, responding to them ?
An interesting point is made by R. Shalom Carmy in a recent Tradition article. He says that he doesn't feel a need to mention the arguments of Bible critics in his class, but he does so, so people could appreciate the creativity of R. DZ Hoffman.
Does that mean the Bible critics are good for the Jews? Obviously not, but they did spark creative Jewish work.
Lehavdil with Slifkin issue, as well. It is perhaps good in a sense no matter what your hashkafa is, because it forces clarity and focus on issues.
I said that it's "considered a destructive force by the yeshivishe velt," but didn't make any kind of appraisal of whether it represents an alternative world. YU doesn't represent an alterantive world; it is one institution. But it, too, represents (or, more accurately, represented in times past) a competing vision which undermined "the canon of yeshivishe gedolim and the hashkafos taught and disseminated by them" and was therefore seen as a destructive force.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, if you don't represent a competing vision you're ignored not made fun of and considered destructive. (That's why it's interesting that you take on academic Jewish study; the fact is, 95% of yeshiva bochurim (not to mention rabbeim) have no clue it exists, will have no clue it exists, and it is mostly ignored in yeshivos. Of course, maybe this will change (or already has changed) because of the internet, in which case you are at the vanguard.
I am reminded of a line from R. Reinman's book, in response to R. Hirsch's assertion that the seder was modeled on the Greek symposium: "What? I never heard this. What are you talking about? Reclining, or the entire ritual? I checked secular sources and found nothing about this."
R. Reinman's response is standard fare in the yeshivishe velt (and he is not a sheltered kid). They never even heard of it.
>>>but how many of those countless tzadikim and talmidei chachamim actually thought about the matter independently. for example, if you were brought up with kabbalah as an assumption, would you necessarily investigate its origin and authenticity. or would you just assume, and go along with the status quo.
ReplyDeleteAnd so I ask you how you can trust Chazal or Rishonim who lived in a patriarchical homophobic society yet whose moral, psychological, and legal judgments you presume have eternal validity? Once you assume independent judgment is clouded by received dogma, where do you draw the line? Are we simply chained to a system that reflects flawed values because we don't have a Sanhedrin that can do anything about it?
You're basically saying that nothing foreign or wrong can become incorporated into or at least attached to Judaism in a broad sense, because if that is the case than everything is called into question. While that may or may not be true, it means that nothing can be criticized, not the Rambam's philosophy and not Chassidus and not lomdus, not Religious Zionism -- nothing. It also means that one cannot acknowledge anything deserving of correction. This would seem to contain a logical flaw somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMiss. - is your comment directed at me, because I don't how it follows.
ReplyDelete>>>You're basically saying that nothing foreign or wrong can become incorporated into or at least attached to Judaism in a broad sense
No, I am simply saying that foreign influence does not preclude independent judgment. Great people shape the spirit of the times, they are not simply moved by it.
>>>it means that nothing can be criticized,
No, it means nothing can be criticized as being the product of foreign influence alone. R' Soloveitchik is reported to have once remarked that to assume that he permits esrogei eretz yisrael during shemita but the satmar rav prohibits because their respective attitudes toward the State influenced their psak is erroneous. Kal v'chomer I think RYBS would reject the idea that a posek is a slave to the influences of his external environment. Of course, psak and hashkafa can be critiqued based on what makes sense minei-ubei to torah thought.
yes, you can critique the position by reducing it to its extreme and saying that it undermines any trust in Chazal. it still does not make it true that one who evaluates independently is pitting his seichel against the seichel of *countless* tzadikim, who in the vast majority of cases did NOT weigh the evidence to come to a conclusion. So it is not an active decision and acceptance. Yes, אין חבוש מתיר עצמו מבית האסורים. This is not necessarily received dogma clouding independent judgment in OTHER matters, but it is received dogma stopping one from evaluating the received dogma itself, rather than building upon it. To take an extreme example, do you think that every gadol throughout history considered Yechezkel in depth, was bothered by apparent contradictions with the Torah, and came out on the side that it should not be nignaz? No, that evaluation was already done for them by Chanania ben Chizkiya. To say that one arguing against it is arguing against everyone who passively accepted it, and pitting his sechel against theirs, seems untrue. Do you think any of your rabbeim seriously considered the canonical status of Yechezkel? Just like not every scientist and not every Tanna, Amora, Gaon and Rishon evaluated the evidence to decide that spontaneous generation was true. They accepted it and worked with it, and so one who sought to prove spontaneous generation untrue was not pitting himself against the sechel of countless rabbis. Nobody starts with all knowledge from scratch. They work in large part from received wisdom. But working with that received wisdom is not the same as actively considering it and only subsequently endorsing it.
ReplyDeleteit *is* arguing against commonly held thought. but probably only a small percentage of rabbonim seriously considered the matter, in the time after the big controversy and it became accepted.
At any rate, I had a post which was sparked in part by a comment you made, namely "Agree with you 100% that the issue should be judged on its merits - but the judge should be gedolei yisrael who are experts in the field." Check it out here.
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teeth-than-jews.html
shabbat shalom,
josh
I have no idea how what you are saying answers the question I asked. Of couse no one re-examined whether Yechezkel should be canonized -- they relied upon the authority and wisdom of those who lived earlier and resolved the question. Halacha and hashkafa build upon precedent. This is exactly why once you call into question whether those precedents of halacha and hashkafa were biased or influenced by external fators you throw the whole system into doubt.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, your whole argument just anounts to saying it's not your seichel against thosands of geonim choosing to think otherwise, it's your seichel against what thousands of geonim accepted passively as part of the mesorah and therefore not worthy of a second thought. You are making things worse for yourself, not better.
"Of couse no one re-examined whether Yechezkel should be canonized -- they relied upon the authority and wisdom of those who lived earlier and resolved the question. Halacha and hashkafa build upon precedent."
ReplyDeletegood, we are in agreement. so it is not what baalei mussar, etc., decided with their seichels. it is what they accepted and built upon.
"You are making things worse for yourself, not better."
the universal philosophical refutation: that's what *you* say. not every axiom which goes unchallenged is bolstered by the fact that people did not think to challenge it. (in fact, it kind of translates it into the realm of argument from authority, from rational argument; as a non-rationalist, you may consider it stronger, but what should a rationalist say?)
we are going to go around in circles because we are working from different systems, but here goes. when the chazon ish doubled the shiurim, overturning precedent of smaller shiurim, did he do so against rishonim and acharonim who actively studied the relevant sugyas and the metzius, considered the idea of doubling the shiurim, and came to an opposite conclusion, deciding it was nonsense; or did he do this where no one or relatively few had even considered the problem? regardless, which would you consider would be a stronger opposition to his chiddush? really!?
good shabbos,
josh
If the CI hadn't come after the Tzlach and the Gr"a, I don't think it would have taken off as the mass movement that it did. He would have been a voice in the wilderness and mostly ignored.
ReplyDeleteHis revolution was based on solid textual precedents, and the historical circumstances were ripe for implementing that paradigm shift.
"(That's why it's interesting that you take on academic Jewish study; the fact is, 95% of yeshiva bochurim (not to mention rabbeim) have no clue it exists, will have no clue it exists, and it is mostly ignored in yeshivos. Of course, maybe this will change (or already has changed) because of the internet, in which case you are at the vanguard."
ReplyDeleteIt's all Slifkin's fault. :)
I am not alone in suspecting he is either a cause or a symptom of a wider developing problem: actively bringing the "worldly yeshiva types" under the influence of the world of academia.
problem?
ReplyDeleteYes! PROBLEM!
ReplyDeleteAcademia comes with so many foundational assumptions that are anti-religious in nature, that I suspect 80% of orthodox people who are engaged in it professionally are closet apikorsim (by today's Orthodox community standards.)
I call that a problem.
:)
ReplyDeletei know you find it problematic. my "question" was really a way of noting that i disagree.
it is a methodology, just like many other methodologies which have developed. and it has its strengths.
kt,
josh
FKM
ReplyDelete>It's all Slifkin's fault. :)
I am not alone in suspecting he is either a cause or a symptom of a wider developing problem: actively bringing the "worldly yeshiva types" under the influence of the world of academia.
Actually, I think that's kind of ridiculous. Here is my explanation: Jewish academia has always attracted Jews who are textually literate. How else to appreciate it, much less participate? Jews who are textually literate, surprisingly, have always been trained in and can be found in yeshivos. ;-) Jewish academia has always attracted people from the yeshiva. If there are more today, and I don't know if that is the case, and therefore it is a more visible phenomenon, it is probably because there are more people in the yeshivos.
Chaim, with regard to what you quoted R. Soloveitchik as saying, in my opinion it's a lovely metaphorical way of saying the following five words: "The halakhic system has integrity!" which was especially urgent in the middle part of the 20th century, where to read a responsum of the Rabbinical Assembly is to basically see the constant argument that the decisions of posekim are all to be explained by the place they lived and what was going on in their time, but that does not make this metaphor, well, accurate. Now, it's possible and even probable that R. Soloveitchik himself believed it, possibly because he knew how he himself operated, and how much he personally strived to free himself of biases and external influence. Indeed, he is noted for having had some unpredictable halakhic opinions. It could be for this reason that he ascribed this to all posekim, such as the Satmar Rav. However, it frankly defies all likelihood that the Satmar Rav's halakhic opinions regarding things relating to Eretz Yisrael had nothing whatever to do with his role as the leading anti-Zionist, any more than it is likely that the positions of Religious Zionist posekim have nothing to do with them being Religious Zionist, yet somehow all these piskei halakhah line up on the predictable side time and again. Of course you will prefer to agree with R. Soloveitchik's impressions of how posekim work rather than mine, but the point is simply that quoting him really accomplishes little. Yes, I know this is what many Orthodox Jews assert is how posekim operate, but that doesn't make it correct.
I most definitely will buy that posekim do make an effort to be unabiased, but they still remain humans. Not slaves, humans. Humans are capable of trying to free themselves from their biases and influences, and they can succeed to a greater or lesser degree, but that cannot succeed with 100% exactitude 100% of the time. In any case, that wasn't really what I was talking about.
I wasn't talking about halachah, but was talking about things intruding in the mainstream of Jewish belief, which one may maintain came from elsewhere. Take something like gilgul neshamos. It seemed to me that you were asserting above that the fact that it entered (or is part of, if you like) the mainstream is in itself proof that it must not be an incorrect doctrine, and souls must really transmigrate. Because if you question that, you said, why not question Chazal?
"but was talking about things intruding in the mainstream of Jewish belief, which one may maintain came from elsewhere."
ReplyDeletePardon me for intruding myself, but I think a major idea which has serious currency in the traditional Jewish world is that Divine Providence guides the direction of Jewish history.
It is extremely relevant to this discussion because part of Jewish history is what Jews come to believe to be an authentic part of Judaism.
If one can posit that some big ideas might have crept into Judaism which are not authentically Jewish, then you are implying that Hashem has let go of the steering wheel and let things irreparably go awry.
90% of Jews (and more, probably) believe many things to be an authentic part of Judaism. "Judaism is about questioning." "Judaism doesn't believe in an afterlife," etc. are some of the things which many, even most Jews believe. So you're telling me that since God guided this than these things are authentically Jewish, or else "Hashem has let go of the steering wheel?"
ReplyDeleteThat was addressed by the Rambam in Iggerres Teiman. He says the Nevi'im predicted that a majority of Jews will lose faith over the course of galus. As long as there remains "a remnant of Israel" which is most closely identified as upholding the mesorah consistently throughout the galus, we see that Hashem has not let go of the steering wheel.
ReplyDeleteThat community has the protection from losing authentic Yiddishkeit.
You know, people unceasingly manufacture comments when anything is predicted to happen in 2012, like “obviously that is if the world is subdue here.” You do achieve that the Mayans predict the faction will end on Dec. 21 (or 23rd)? So in all strong if anything is going to take place in 2012 there is solitary the slimmest possibility that the everybody hand down have ended forward of it happens.
ReplyDelete[url=http://2012earth.net/new_world_2012.html
]planet nibiru 2012
[/url] - some truth about 2012
You have to express more your opinion to attract more readers, because just a video or plain text without any personal approach is not that valuable. But it is just form my point of view
ReplyDeleteYou have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it
ReplyDeleteHi there friends, how is everything, and what you want to say regarding this
ReplyDeletearticle, in my view its actually awesome for me.
Also visit my page slots real money