My fingers are numb from responding to comments on Pesachim 94! Thank you all for the stimulating ideas and thoughtful feedback, and apologies if I have not responded to every detail. OK, granted that some of you are convinced that a great many of the Rishonim were rationalists and you find this view very appealing. Here is my simple question: Why? I have a Moreh Nevuchim on my shelf that I read once upon a time, but find so much more meaning in the world view of Nefesh haChaim or the Ishbitza (just to take random as examples) that I can't understand what is driving you people. And my impression is that not just the chassidic world or yeshiva ba'alei machshava, but even the modern orthodox world (I hate using labels, but it makes it easier in this case) has a preference for the mystical over the rationalist: the Young Israel closest to me hosts a Sefas Emes shiur, another modern orthodox shul hosts a Shabbos shiur in Zohar, one of the largest and most vibrant kehilos in the 5 Towns is R' Moshe Weinberger's Aish Kodesh, and among the neighborhood yeshivos certainly Sha'ar Yashuv is known for emphasizing chassidic style "machshava" as well as traditional gemara learning. Rav Kook emphasized the need to teach the "hidden" parts of Torah to our generation, and R' Soloveitchik critiqued Moreh in part IV of his Halakhic Mind. "Mysticism" does not mean belief in witchcraft or ghosts or new age healers or thinkers -- it includes a systematic way of looking at the world and one's relationship to G-d, as explained by seforim like the Ramchal, Maharal, Nefesh haChaim, Tanya, and others. What is so unappealing about these works?
To flip the question around: why reject rationalism? A few reasons off the top of my head:
1) Its explanations are not convincing -- do you think eating non-kosher is unhealthy? (Ramban VaYikra 11:13 cites the scientists to support this!) I can't have no way to know what is good or bad for my soul, but I can empirically test what is good for my body.
2) It makes religion the handmaiden to other values -- mitzvos are measured as "good" relative to other values (e.g. health, moral refinement, "justice") instead of being appreciated for their intrinsic worth.
3) Much in life seems mysterious and to defy rational explanation, and religion is no exception. The poet or painter speaks to us about deep human truths that the scientist or philosopher cannot capture or articulate.
4) Reducing Torah to a means toward moral or intellectual perfection alone robs it of its distinction from disciplines like law, philosophy, etc. which also stake a claim to these same goals.
5) Laws such as chukim are by definition inexplicable and point to a need for subservience to G-d without external justification - i.e. "because He said so".
This is not an exhaustive list, but a starting point. I'm not so much interested in responses to these critiques as much as an explanation from those who have both sampled Moreh Nevuchim or Ralbag or some other rationalist Rishon and also dabbled in the world of R' Tzadok and Maharal: Why does the former grab you and not the latter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm on your side here, but I would hazard a guess that the modern day "rationalists" are so impressed by science and it's accomplishments, and they attribute this great advance to the rejection of mystical notions, and the search for more prosaic explanations of all phenomena.
ReplyDeleteChaim, the very second reason you suggest rejecting rationalism is the reason I accept it - it makes religion the handmaid of an objective good. To paraphrase Socrates' old question - I forget which discourse - are the mitzvos good because god commanded them or did god command them because they are good.
ReplyDeleteIf the former - if religion is a value unto itself - then you must concede that had there been a mitzvah to, say, ritually disembowel first born boys, it would be equally "good" to do so. (And its no use replying "god would never command such a thing" because that answer itself recognizes that the act itself is not good, with reference to some standard other than 'did god command it')
Moreover, the former position shuts off all use of the mind to understand the taamei hamitzvos; if the mitzvos are good simply because they are commanded, then that is all the taam you need. Anything else is a distraction from the ultimate truth - mitzvos are good because they are commanded, end of story.
Taking the latter approach, in contrast, allows for investigation and, bezras hashem, understanding of the good mitzvos are aimed at. They are not cosmic accidents, meaningless but for the hope of reward or fear of punishment (both ways we are admonished not to approach avodas hashem). They are goods in and of themselves, meant to be done lshma. You can't talk of lshma without this approach, imo.
As far as I'm concerned, there is far, far, far greater meaning in the rational approach than in rejecting it.
again, because it appears to be true, not because of any gains or losses in holding one position or another. you don't decide what is true on the basis of benefits 1-4, just as you don't decide to read a gemara in a certain way because you want to arrive at the more meikil or machmir position.
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
Josh, if what we are talking about is a perspective, a way of looking and treating the words of chazal, then "truth" as not the appropriate term here.
ReplyDeleteChaim,
ReplyDeleteI am a new reader of your blog, so up front i apologize for any implied insult…but you cannot be serious about your question. Nobody in this day and age, unless he is mentally impaired, rejects rationalism as an approach to all aspects of life. Mainly because, every normal human bases even the tiniest decisions, by and large on using his, however meager, intellect. (Try crossing an expressway using the throw of dice as your decision maker or any other similar silly example). And experience has shown that this seems to be the most successful (in terms of health, wealth and happiness) methodology.
So, being that religion and religious belief are also a part of life, then for most people, common sense leads one to apply rationality first, as much as ys possible, to understanding/following religion and blind faith comes second. and then only if rationality and sense of reality doesn’t overtly conflict with the creed that one is supposed to believe.
Further, if you are to apply this “let us say it some mystical interpretation” for strange text then how and why should anything in anybody’s writing ever be taken at face value?
As for not understanding the GRA, well WADR respect, who said he was infallible?
DY
People trust much of science not because they are "impressed" but because it seems to work to a great extent.
The reasons why you prefer mysticism and reject rationalism are all about what makes you feel good, and nothing to do with reasons for it being true. (Saying that non-kosher food is unhealthy is by no means part of the rationalist approach.)
ReplyDeleteThe reasons why we prefer the Rishonim's take on Pesachim 94b is that we have reason to think that it is actually true. It is the pashtus of the text and there is no reason to think that it is misleading us and that all the Rishonim were misled.
I think it gives parents of autistic children so much pleasure and meaning to think that by means of facilitated communication, their children are conveying nevuah from the higher olamos. Unfortunately there is no reason to think that their children are actually doing such things.
Josh, the problem with that answer, logically, is that its circular. You are using the tools of rationality (what makes the most sense, logically) to conclude that you should use the tools of rationality.
ReplyDelete>>>Mainly because, every normal human bases even the tiniest decisions, by and large on using his, however meager, intellect.
ReplyDeleteDavid A, I hate to ask a personal question, but are you married?
Did you sit down and draw up a list of plusses vs. minuses before marrying your wife and 'rationally' conclude that of the thousands of girls out there she is the best choice, or did you follow your instinct?
I tend more towards the side of rationality as opposed to mysticism; however I don't think that the boundary lines need be drawn so starkly.
ReplyDeleteOf more importance, however, I am much disturbed by the vehemence with which the mysticism advocates attack the rationalists. I think that such is a carryover from Israeli communal politics. The most important point of the rationalists is that their position is a legitimate one within Yiddishkeit. Delegitimizing an authentic derech of many of the Rishonim
can do nothing of value.
KT
Eliyahu
Eliyahu,
ReplyDeleteWell said.
>>>>> Did you sit down and draw up a list of plusses vs. minuses before marrying your wife and 'rationally' conclude that of the thousands of girls out there she is the best choice, or did you follow your instinct?
ReplyDeleteActually, yes…maybe not physically sit down and write out a list, but mentally, yes. I believe this process is part of every decision made. the intellect provides plenty of input as to pluses and minuses. Only when one runs out of input or out of time does one resort to “gut” decisions. I don’t think you are any different.
Besides your analogy is very poor. Your are bringing into play emotions, like love, anger, greed which do have the capacity, in varying degrees, to override or subvert a person’s cognitive reactions. But is “Faith” an emotion?? I don’t think so. for most people “Faith” cannot suppress clear and unambiguous facts. (that is, unambiguous in the eyes of the beholder).
so to turn it around, while you may be wondering why people choose rational answers over responses based on faith, i have great difficulty understanding how seeming “rational” people can have blind faith in the face of contradictory “facts”.
David, since almost all historians, archeologists, and experts do not think an event called yetziyas mitzrayim took place, is that not part of your religion? Do you trust the view of almost all historians and experts that Torah and Tanach were composed over an extended period, or do you believe in a maa'amd har sinai, no matter what they say?
ReplyDeleteDr. Moshe Bernstein of YU recently wrote that in the area of Biblical scholarship we of the frum community (obviously including the YU community) must place limits on where intellectual inquiry leads us -- do you take issue with that? Why and when does blind faith trump reason?
>>>Actually, yes…maybe not physically sit down and write out a list, but mentally, yes
ReplyDeleteParenthetically, cognitive psychologists tell us that this is in fact now how most decision making occurs. Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink is one example of many that address this phenomenon.
Dr. Moshe Bernstein of YU recently wrote that in the area of Biblical scholarship we of the frum community (obviously including the YU community) must place limits on where intellectual inquiry leads us -- do you take issue with that? Why and when does blind faith trump reason?
ReplyDeleteFaith does not trump reason. But reason tells me that Torah miSinai ocurred, and that God is infallible; given those two premises, reason tells me that the historians who dispute the existence of yetziat mitzrayim are wrong (particularly given the well known rule of logic that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the further correspondence between the timeframe and the short lived rise of Egyptian monotheism)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAGGH!!!
ReplyDeleteI just worked on this long and elaborate comment explaining my view. I forgot to copy it, my browser messed up, and deleted it!
My basic point was that many of us don't necessarily believe something is rational just because a gadol says it (e.g. Rav Hirsch's system was a horaas shaah, FC, geocentrism, etc.) and that this makes us look at the issues quite differently from those who accept the statements of the gedolim to be rational in an "ex cathedra" sort of sense.
But I had, like, disclaimers, elaborate, and stuff...oh well. Well, anyways, good Shabbos.
Chaim,
ReplyDeleteTo address one of your recently added points - who said chukim are inexplicable? Note: tzitzis is a chok, and yet the explanation for it is given in the torah - lman tizkiru.
As for the argument that Torah becomes no different from law or philosophy; just the opposite. The distinction is that Torah is god given and perfect (in other words, it accomplishes the goal)
I was away so I missed this great debate.
ReplyDeleteThe Torah in my understanding, teaches to abandon Avodah Zara which is irrational, magical and full of myths and much beauty and attach oneself to truth. Truth is rational and can only be acquired with our mind. yes there are limits to our knowledge and we have to stop where we cannot go further, where the physical ends we may not go. The Ketzeh Hamachaneh of this week's parsha were the remnants of the Na'arei bnei ysroel and nadav veavihu who went beyond the permitted into the irrational. The Rishonim held they were rationally accepting spiritual worlds because the science of their times taught that. Once humanity discovered that those theories are false, that fell under the rubric of Avodah Zara (Esh Zara of Nadav Veavihu) and is passul. How to explain the crowds that like it? AZ was very attractive as the Tana (i forget which one said) had i been there I would not have resisted!What about Gedolei Ysroel who teach it? I have no explanation but there is no obligation to follow them blindly notwithstanding what the popular belief is. I will follow them in psak when I do not know the halacha myself but I believe it wrong to follow blindly.
R. Chaim all the reasons you enumerate for following the irrational confirms Karl Marx's comment of the religion being the opiate of the masses C'V.
My motto withe sifrei chassidus and other sifrei machshava that go along the derech of mysticism is Tocho chal Klipato Zarak.
Re MN - I have not yet found a sefer that talks to me more than him.
Gut Shabbos
>>>reason tells me that the historians who dispute the existence of yetziat mitzrayim are wrong
ReplyDeleteInteresting that 99% of the world is irrational when they don't agree with you, but when "chareidi" gedolim dismiss 99% of scientists who believe in evolution because their reasoning tells them it cannot be true, they are labelled "fundamentalists".
Anyway, so 99% of thinking people are wrong and your position is the only "rational" conclusion, arrived at without bias or preconceived notions? With all due respect I am sure you can spend many an afternoon listening to people in a padded cell explain why their beliefs make perfect sense and the rest of the world is crazy, but the fact that their "logic" and "reasoning" does not accord with what makes sense to the rest of the world tells us otherwise. "Yes, but in my case it's the truth!"...
My wife says that was a mean comment.... I hope it is clear that I am not suggesting you are crazy. I am suggesting that the insistance as to what is "rational" is far more subjective than you allow. The academics think their position is more rational than yours, so appealing to reason as a proof is a dead end that will not work.
ReplyDelete>>>Once humanity discovered that those theories are false, that fell under the rubric of Avodah Zara
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight -- you think accepting mutiple worlds like atzeilus, yetzira, briya, asiya -- is avodah zarah? You mean everyone from the GR"A and Ramchal down to the ba'alei machshava of our time, the entire chassidic world, ba'alei mussar like R' Dessler and R' Bloch -- all these people are ovdei avodah zarah and only you have the true idea of Judaism based on Moreh?
if i might chime in here, and at the risk of undermining other positions, yes. :) :(
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
i might add, what did the Gra think of chasidim and their panentheism?
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
Josh, well said. To Rambam - Ramban probably was on the edge as was Rambam to ramban see Sha'ar Hagemul. I do not know how to explain all these olamos. I suspect that the gra et al, the real gedolei ysroel had a concept of them that you and all those that quote them have no idea what it is and repeating, talking and so on about something else altogether. And yes, there were gedolei ysroel who erred. See Rashba re R. Avraham Abulafia who is the source of Remak and Arizal.
ReplyDeleteI do not judge. I just refuse to accept anything the sechel cannot grasp. To me doing that is AZ. I try to understand the derech of rambam because he sets limits and refuses to go outside the knowable.
>>>> David, since almost all historians, archeologists, and experts do not think an event called yetziyas mitzrayim took place, is that not part of your religion?
ReplyDeleteThere is no conclusive “proof” at this point in mankind’s knowledge that can support nor disprove whether YM occurred. My own belief is that YM did occur primarily because it is so powerfully part of our sacred texts and history (a sort of abridged Kuzari argument). But at the same time, my personal assimilation of the information and logic forms my view that most likely the details and description of YM as presented in Chumash is an out and out exaggeration. Needless to say, i also don’t believe in the traditional definition of Torah min Hashomayim (i.e. that God authored the Torah) and had concluded on my own, long before i even heard about secular biblical scholarship that the Torah and Tanach were composed over an extended period, by many authors.
>>> do you believe in a maa'amd har sinai, no matter what they say?
Same answer as YM. Something very likely happened but the extent of revelation is unknown to us.
>>>> Dr. Moshe Bernstein of YU recently wrote that in the area of Biblical scholarship we of the frum community (obviously including the YU community) must place limits on where intellectual inquiry leads us -- do you take issue with that?
Well, of course, I do. And his attitude makes no sense. Traditional Judaism and the Torah itself demands that we seek the truth.. also, if you honestly believe in the promise that God will never forsake his people or that the “torah” (liberal translation of the word) will never leave Am Yisroel, then how can one possibly be afraid of seeking the Emet.
>>>>> Why and when does blind faith trump reason?
If the “evidence” is compelling enough, never.
(of course, “compelling” is a subjective word)
gut shabbos.
I see me and my fellow blog commenters may not see eye to eye on everything....actually, we may be at complete loggerheads on some issues.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that when the best minds of Klal Yisrael are ovdei avodah zarah and only you have the truth, there is something very, very wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe GR"A's position vis. chassidus is an excellent illutstraion of the phenomenon I have been describing. Aside from yourself, no one else among the gedolim of klal yisrael thinks of chassidus as worthy of being banned. Our mesorah has paskened against the GR"A and moved in a different direction.
You are literally establishing a seperatist movement that has nothing in common with the hashkafos of the rest of the Jewish people. I guess to each his own.
>>>Needless to say, i also don’t believe in the traditional definition of Torah min Hashomayim (i.e. that God authored the Torah)
ReplyDeleteYou are advocating a Judaism composed of pick-your-own ikkarim or pick-your-own interpretation thereof based on whatever makes most sense to you.
I guess you have no concern that your seichel suffers shortcomings and biases and maybe traditional authority is right even if you do not understand why.
There is no Rishonim or Acharon who I think you can hang your hat on that adopts your approach, but then again, those are just authority figures that should not stand in the way of truth. Even Tanaim and Amorain are just fallible people who may have been wrong.
This is very admirable and idealistic in its own way, and I mean that sincerly. I just don't think with respect to Judaism that you and I have much to talk about because we do not even share the most basic assumption and framework (e.g. the inviolability of the ikkarim).
>You are literally establishing a seperatist movement that has nothing in common with the hashkafos of the rest of the Jewish people. I guess to each his own.
ReplyDeleteGod forbid. I believe, and I think I am supported by most serious Jews, that one who accepts halacha as a way of life (within its variations) and accepts the ikkarim as defined by rambam in perek Chelek, is not a separatist. The fact that I do not accept mysticism and hold that it is not something that is sanctioned by our religion, even if the majority nowadays accepts it - how is beyond my simple mind - does not make me into a separatist. It is not dogma notwithstanding desperate efforts to make into such. I am from a chassidishe background as those who read my blog by now know and at a certain stage in my development did try to understand and delve into chassidus and mysticism, only to conclude that it is no more than the fruit of fertile imaginations and probably wrong. It falls in my mind under the rubric of midvar Sheker tirchak which rambam in pirush hamishna defines AZ. I also believe that this pressure to accept it because it is the majority's opinion is damaging and a cause for chilul hashem and behind the many overt and covert skeptics in our midst.
>>>>>>. I just don't think with respect to Judaism that you and I have much to talk about because we do not even share the most basic assumption and framework (e.g. the inviolability of the ikkarim).
ReplyDeleteif that’s a polite way of saying “get lost”, i truly respect your wishes and you won’t hear a peep more from me after this comment.
Further i respect your faith and marvel at the ability to maintain it in the face of evidence to the contrary. and mostly I have no desire to convince you of anything.
But, the minute you use the word ‘rationalism’, i am compelled to jump up and say wait a minute, most of the thinking world looks at and uses evidence. And if the evidence is strong enough, then it rejects, or at least questions, faith based beliefs. You can’t invite a discussion involving the human intellect and then say “well you’re out of bounds because i don’t believe in evidence” or that “only my definition of evidence will be permitted.”
>>>> You are advocating a Judaism composed of pick-your-own ikkarim or pick-your-own interpretation thereof based on whatever makes most sense to you.
I am not advocating anything. But, to me it is an undeniable fact that traditional Judaism faces a huge crisis of faith if it sticks to all 13 ikkarim, and ignoring it or making it out of bounds, will not change that reality one iota. You know very well that these ikkarim and the requirement to believe them all were not originally part of the so-called ‘mesorah’. This only became part of normative Judaism in last 5to 7 hundred years.
>>>> I guess you have no concern that your seichel suffers shortcomings and biases and maybe traditional authority is right even if you do not understand why.
Of course, i doubt myself. And I have, and still do, agonize over the question of “how could such brilliant scholars have gotten it so very wrong”, and i have no good answer. This question then just joins the many other imponderables that we all live with. but the fact is that our sages were not infallible (you just commented on the GRA’s blunder vis-Ã -vis chassidus) and so accepting that there were errors on their part is easy, the question that is difficult is to what extant were these errors.
Wow, Chaim B. You sound like you're scandalized when you hear people say they will not accept what they cannot understand. Regardless of how big a gaon and tzaddik says it's true.
ReplyDeleteThey say they're just following Rav Avraham Ben HaRambam's shitta!
Were have you been all these years in the Intellectual M.O. blogoshphere?
>>>if that’s a polite way of saying “get lost”,
ReplyDeleteIt's a polite way of saying that since our methodology is different, our standards of evidence are different, our conclusions will naturally be different.
Two lawyers can agree upon the rules of evidence and procedure and still advocate for different sides of a case. However, when the procedural rules are themselves subject to disagreement we are holding in a different parsha entirely.
The all out pursuit of truth vs. respecting tradition even in the face of evidence is an interesting question, but it's not my topic for now. All I am saying is that assuming you agree with the procedural rule that tradition gets as least as big vote a vote as your own mind does (if not a veto), then my position makes more sense than that being advocated by the so called rationalists. At least you pull no punches and follow your own thinking to its logical conclusion.
>>>It falls in my mind under the rubric of midvar Sheker tirchak which rambam in pirush hamishna defines AZ.
ReplyDeleteBy seperatist I simply mean for practical and sociological purposes you do not share certain fundemental beliefs with the majority of the Jewish community. Whether what you say violates one of the ikkarim is irrelevant -- I am not speaking in the halachic sense of the definition of a kofer.
"You know very well that these ikkarim and the requirement to believe them all were not originally part of the so-called ‘mesorah’. This only became part of normative Judaism in last 5to 7 hundred years. "
ReplyDeleteOne can say that the Middle Ages was a historical catalyst for needing to flesh out ikkarim(see appendix in R. Berel Wein's history of the period), as is also quite obvious from discussion in Rishonim about the Rambam's listing of ikkarim, pro or con. However, this does not mean that ikkarim were not an organic part of the Mesorah.
See R. Shulman's response in page 10 of the linked Commentator article that:
"...The 13 Ikkarim are the Rambam’s distillation of the content of that
masorah. There may be disagreements about the details. What overarches the disputes is the masorah itself, and everyone agrees that the masorah itself is binding...
...Rambam’s is the most concise formulation and it is pashetah be-chol Yisrael. And the
disputes are really very few; you have to go searching to find them. In most cases, what are represented as disputes don’t withstand close inspection."
http://www.kolhamevaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/kol-hamevaser-26-finalr.pdf
Chaim,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, don't worry about being "mean." I will never be upset at someone for attacking my ideas, even vehemently.
That said, with all due respect, your entire response was aimed at a straw man, because you conflated the concepts of "rational" and "correct" (or, more accurately, "irrational" and "incorrect")
Interesting that 99% of the world is irrational when they don't agree with you, but when "chareidi" gedolim dismiss 99% of scientists who believe in evolution because their reasoning tells them it cannot be true, they are labelled "fundamentalists".
I did not say the majority of historians are "irrational" - I said they are wrong. There's a rather dramatic distinction between the two. Let's examine this in more detail.
When historians say yetziat mitzrayim never happened, what are they saying? (and note that it is not all historians; even in the community of historians there is acknowledged room for rational disagreement on the subject)
They are saying "there is no evidence of this event in the historical record."
Let's parse that:
1) "No evidence" does not mean "I can definitively say that it did not happen"; rather, it means "I have no reason to think it did"
2) "No evidence" also inherently implies the rejection of the Torah account as a valid historical source.
With respect to the former, as I said before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 100 people can tell me "I see no evidence of X"; if I myself see evidence, then all 100 are irrelevant. (Not irrational, but irrelevant). That the egyptians were known to fail to record adverse history only strengthens that general rule.
With respect to the latter, I obviously do not reject the Torah as an accurate source of history; as such, it itself provides the evidence the historians you are citing say is nonexistant. In other words, the disagreement comes down to whether Torah is in fact min-hashamayim. And on that subject, even were I particularly concerned with the appeal to authority that's at the heart of your argument, historians have no particular expertise.
Finally, as I've referenced, the rise and fall of Atenism in Egypt does provide some evidence if you operate from the premise that Yetziat Mitzrayim happened, Just after the primary timeframe proposed fopr Y'M, Egypt enjoyed a brief flare of monotheism as Aten was raised to chief of the gods and eventually to sole god. Most historians ascribe this to a random personality quirk in the relevant pharoah; viewed in light of Y'M, it makes much more sense: the Egyptians were trying to copy what had worked for the Jews. They tried to make Aten chief god; when that didn't do it, they pushed all the way to monotheism. When that failed as well, they went back to polytheism. It certainly is more explainable with Y'M than without.
Anyway, so 99% of thinking people are wrong and your position is the only "rational" conclusion, arrived at without bias or preconceived notions?
Irrational? Not necessarily. Wrong? Yes. Frankly, if majority rule were all that mattered, we should all be christians.
Finally, I'll note that the equivalence you are seeking to draw between science and history is a false one. Science is testable, provable and disprovable. History - particularly ancient history as discovered through archaeology, is not. At best, with respect to all but the most general conclusions, it is a highly educated guess