A post and comments over at Not Brisker Yeshivish goes down the same road we have been over here a few times, but it does not hurt to do chazarah, so contribute to the discussion there. Just to recap a few basic points yet again:
1) Most people would not simply open a Yoreh De'ah and start deciding halacha based on which arguments of the Shach or Taz appeal to them, especially if they are aware that gedolei ha'achronim and poskim have weighed in on the issue. Multiple views on an issue is not a license to pick and choose freely among them. Same should hold true of hilchos deyos and hashkafos as well -- picking and choosing without guidance and without regard to precedent is a recipe for disaster. Given our own shortsightedness in all areas of life, personal preference or "what makes sense" is often a poor guide to what is true.
2) Asking, "Does holding X make a person an apikores?" is the wrong question to use to determine whether to espouse a certain belief. You can make a lot of mistakes before meeting the technical definition of an apikores. According to the Ra'avad you can believe G-d has a body and not be an apikores. Yet, that certainly does not mean one should aspire to or champion such a belief as an ideal!
3) The statement that certain views of Rishonim have become less acceptable over time is not a strange concept, but is an idea that we live with every time we open a Shulchan Aruch and follow one view to the exclusion of others. Asking, "Are you labelling the Rambam an apikores?" if you reject his philosophy makes as much sense as asking, "Are you labelling the Rambam a mechalel Shabbos?" if we happen to follow other views in a hilchos shabbos sugya.
Before one weighs whether the Rambam would really subscribe to all that is currently attributed to his philosophy, I think it pays to ask whether the Moreh Nevuchim has really left a lasting impression on Jewish thought, more than other thinkers who have lived since? If not, the question which begs itself is why (other than personal preference, which carries very little weight) one would suddenly look to the Rambam more than other views of Rishonim and Achronim to shape one's philosophy. Fortunately, my question was answered by Rav Soloveitchik in "The Halakhic Mind" p. 92:
"Judging Maimonides' undertaking retrospectively, one must admit that the master whose thought shaped Jewish ideology for centuries to come did not succeed in making his interpretations of the commandments prevalent in our world perspective... The reluctance on the part of the Jewish homo religiosus to accept Maimonidean rationalistic ideas is not ascribable to any agnostic tendencies, but to the incontrovertible fact that such explanations neither edify not inspire the religious consciousness. They are essentially, if not entirely, valueless for the religious interests we have most at heart."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many people make their Rationalistic determinations based on their own subjective beliefs that 'this can't be because I just don't believe it' and did not come to the realazation the way those who they rely on for precedent did. This is one of the reasons why it is a dangerous slippery slope. Who knows were denial of beliefs based on subjectivity can lead people!
ReplyDelete[I put this comment on Not Brisk, but he's approving comments now, so for your early viewing pleasure:]
ReplyDeleteChaim B:
You know, I have to admit, you have some points!
What haredi rashei yeshivas/chassidish rebbes will admit to believing in evolution? Which of these rabbis will openly condemn in writing the hafganot that take place with the encouragement of the Badatz (see the pamphlet Marty Bluke put on his blog)? Which of these manhigim unequivocally and openly condemned child abuse until the Markey Bill forced the issue to be discussed? How many of these rabbanim put Yudi Kolko in cherem or condemned his cushy treatment while on vacation in the Catskills? And "shtika kihoda'ah:" indeed, in the haredi world there is a consensus!
Also, I applaud you for courageously noting that despite Rabbi Joseph Elias's claim that it is possible to be a haredi yekke and to be a Hirschian, under Rabbi Elias's leadership and initiative the "Hirschian" institutions became essentially what you refer to as "Torah-only." Rabbi Elias's approach, despite any protestations on his part, is indeed the same as the one you discuss.
However, I would appreciate it if you would not tell us what us non-haredi Jews have to believe without knowing our rabbanim. I know of haredi rabbis who have tried to avoid machlokes by not waving shitas around which others would consider controversial and if E-man musters the opinion of R' Lichtenstein or R' Hershel Schachter in regards to a matter, that won't decrease machlokes, but will have the opposite effect -- then people here in the blogs will disagree with them and some anonymous people may pop up and claim they're not gedolim. Would you argue that followers of R' Lichtenstein should be Zionists and value secular studies as he does? Should they follow shitas haRav which R' Lichtenstein expounds on with the following:
"The Rav did not over the course of time continue to espouse the ideology [of] Daas Torah, which claims that all political issues contain a clear-cut halakhic dimension and therefore are subject to the binding and exclusive decisions of Gedolei Torah. At the start he advocated this view and presented it with passion [in his eulogy for Rav Hayyim Ozer]. But after a while he abandoned it, and during subsequent decades accepted and even sharpened the distinction between matters of halakhah (divrei mitzvah), which are subject to the rulings of rabbinic authorities, and matters of policy (divrei reshut), where significant consideration is to be accorded to the views and authority of other groups."
Baruch, I did not want to mention any names that could be disgraced!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Chaim, I will not accept your points without you answering any of the countless questions that remain on my blog with our discussion you me and baruch were having. Also, I continuously see you missing the point:"According to the Ra'avad you can believe G-d has a body and not be an apikores. Yet, that certainly does not mean one should aspire to or champion such a belief as an ideal!"
Clearly, the Raavad believed there were great men of his generation that believed this. He disagreed, but that is like a machlokes between Rav Moshe and the Satmar Rav or Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman. There is no slippery slope here, there is only two valid halachic opinions.
my comment from that blog, not yet published:
ReplyDeletewhile i believe that it is indeed possible to argue for the legitimacy of following certain rishonim and certain positions over the "consensus", especially where this is the approach one received from his rebbe and father, i think the entire argument is beside the point. and that one can argue that a credible posek should *not* necessarily follow consensus in matters of halacha is also beside the point.
i don't care if *any* rishon, or acharon says it. halacha works by certain established rules, which may legitimize positions even if un-"true", but in terms of rationalism -- and it depends of course on the specifics -- we are dealing here with Truth and Reality. you cannot pasken reality.
and if you tell me you can pasken reality, then feel free, but i will say that Judaism is Falsehood and Nonsense, and why should I be Jewish at all? to give an example, even though Chaim B. does not like this particular example:
A certain Gadol professed belief that gentiles have only 31 teeth, while Jews have 32. And that a certain anti-Semitic dentist in the US counts the teeth, and if he finds 32, he refuses to treat. pretend for a moment that this was actually a "consensus", though one or two rabbonim here and there argued. and i am a dentist, and know that this is nonsense. would you say that I have no authority to say that Jews have the same number of teeth as gentiles?
if you tell me that, I will just say that you are following a stupid religion, just as Hindus and Christians and Zoroastrians follow a false and stupid religion. that we can find scattered gedolim, rishonim and acharonim, to support this is not the *basis*, at least for me. that it is the Truth is the basis. however, these scattered sources make me feel better that Judaism is not False, and that this is in fact a machlokes in which some, though perhaps in the minority, hold this. and it helps me gain some legitimacy in the eyes of the idiots who think that you cannot say that Jews and Gentiles have the same number of teeth.
certain things are just so stupid -- nowadays -- that you demean yourself by arguing that it is a subject of discussion. for example, that in chareidi newspapers it was a matter of *discussion* whether one could argue with the geocentric model is a source of embarrassment.
kol tuv,
josh
>>>i will say that Judaism is Falsehood and Nonsense,
ReplyDeleteAnd the arbiter of what is falsehood and nonsense is... your own seichel of course. Exactly the problem. Instead of using hypotheticals about teeth as an escape clause, why not deal with reality?
Baruch, I have no idea what anything you have written has to do with me. Obviously you have a bias against the chareidi world, but nothing you wrote addresses the very specific points which I raised. As for the one specific hashkafic point you raise:
>>>What haredi rashei yeshivas/chassidish rebbes will admit to believing in evolution?
I will simply point out that R' Moshe Tendler and R' Ahron Soloveitchik among YU Roshei Yeshiva forcefully reject belief in evolution in their writing. If the rejection of that belief comes from a YU Rosh Yeshiva does it make it more palatable for you?
E-man, the Ra'avad clearly did not support belief in the corporeality of G-d; he specifically labels this erroneous. Sorry, that's what the words say.
E-man:
ReplyDeleteNu, nu, they'll degrade the movement instead of the people and that's so much better? Then it's worse beacuse they're slandering entire kehillot and their rabbanim(lashon hara applies to groups as well as individuals). [Btw, not referring to Chaim B. there]
Josh:
Yasher kochacha.
Btw, I feel I probably wasn't clear enough in my above comment. I don't feel that "chareidim are stupid and therefore one shouldn't be chareidi" which is the impression one might get. Rather, I think there are certain things about that world which make it impossible for the rest of us to live in it.
R' Chaim B., you obviously have a bias against the rationalist world.
ReplyDeleteI was writing how there is a consensus in how to address issues in the haredi world. That speaks to your point.
If the rejection of that belief comes from a YU Rosh Yeshiva does it make it more palatable for you?
no.
>>>I was writing how there is a consensus in how to address issues in the haredi world.
ReplyDeleteI am speaking of a consensus among talmidei chachamim about issues that relate to halacha and hashkafa. You are talking consensus of askanim about politics. World of difference.
Given that important distinction, can you please point to any specific statement I have written with respect to how we arrive at halachic and hashkafic concusions that you disagree with?
>>>no.
So no matter who disagrees with your belief in evolution -- whether it is YU Roshei Yeshiva or otherwise -- you will stick to your guns. Is this because 1) there is some gadol I am unaware of who subscribes to the view you have adopted and he is either your rebbe or someone of sufficient stature that his view trumps all opposing opinions, or 2) you simply could care less what any Acharon or gadol says because in areas like this you freel you can just make up your own mind as to what the proper Torah hashkafa is?
1 sec, this'll take a minute to type out...
ReplyDeleteChaim B, apparently you don't understand what I said. Did I say Raavad holds that??? NO!!!!!! I can;t understand why you can't understand me.
ReplyDeleteI said "Clearly, the Raavad believed there were great men of his generation that believed this. He disagreed, but that is like a machlokes between Rav Moshe and the Satmar Rav or Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman. There is no slippery slope here, there is only two valid halachic opinions."
Show me in there where I said the RAAVAD held this???????? I said there were people in his generation that he believed were great men that held this. HE HIMSELF DISAGREED. BUT THERE WERE STILL GREAT MEN IN HIS GENERATION THAT BELIEVED IT.
WHAT ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING???????????????????
E-man, what does this have to do with anything. I invite you to name three gedolim living in our day and age who think it is OK to believe that G-d has a body because the "gedolim" who the Ra'avad quotes is a shita you can rely on. After you name your three names we can continue this discussion, but until then there is nothing to talk about because there is simply no machlokes.
ReplyDeleteUntil there are gedolim who are on record as saying evolution is a belief which is consistant with Torah, there is similarly nothing to debate.
And unless those views are those of your rebbe or those of someone of such great authority that it trumps all counter views, there is nothing to speak of either.
No different than any other area of Torah.
Josh, I am going to go ahead and disagree with you here on a small detail. I think it is important that an idea exist prior in Judaism that allows us to believe in rationale. To say Jews and non-Jews have different teeth is to ignore facts. However, a lot of rishonim and achronim believed that you should ignore facts. However, there are also a nice amount of rishonim and achronim that believe you should not deny facts.
ReplyDeleteNow to say the rationalists are more would probably be wrong in terms of achronim. In terms of rishonim they might be.
However, everything needs to have a mesorah otherwise it would not be part of Judaism. That is why I am so confused why Chaim B will write off rationalism, but embrace chassidism. Chassidism was invented 200 years ago! Chaim B even admits this on Not Brisker's blog.
Either way, both rational and unrational Judaism have a mesorah. The Vilna Goan clearly had a mesorah and he was not a rationalist. Rishonim like the Maharal and others that believed in Kabbalah and other things had a mesorah. However, the Rambam, Ralbag, ibn ezra, ibn tibbin and many others also had a mesorah. To invalidate either is ridiculous.
Now if a person finds one version more suitable for them then by all mens follow that mesorah, but do not deny the existence of either! To claim, like Chaim B, that you are not allowed to decide which mesorah you want to follow is to push Jews away from Judaism. Whatever will bring you closer to G-D is what you should follow. Whatever will push you further from G-D is what you should not follow. But in the end of the day it comes down to the fact that both are in the mesorah. Anyone who denies this lacks an elementary knowledge of Jewish history through the destruction of the second temple until recent times.
(I am still unsure where the mesorah for chassidism comes from, anyone want to tell me? Or was that REALLY made up? I haven't seen a single rishon that discusses anything like chassidism.)
Whoa, again Chaim B you misunderstand me. I was arguing that in the time of RASHI corporealism was an accepted idea. I still invite you to answer Baruch and my questions on my blog.
ReplyDelete>>>you are not allowed to decide which mesorah you want to follow
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me by your logic why I can't open a shulchan aruch and start paskening shach and taz based on which appeals to me better. It's the mesorah I want to follow that's important, not what my community has accepted as valid, right?
(Same error as you made before - confusing the fact that multiple views historically existed with the right of individuals to pick and choose.)
"Until there are gedolim who are on record as saying evolution is a belief which is consistant with Torah, there is similarly nothing to debate."
ReplyDeleteMany rabbonim that I have asked said as long as you believe evolution was guided by G-D or caused by G-D why is that inconsistent with the Torah? Most of them end off by saying it doesn't matter though. Fact is fact, whatever happened happened. If evolutin is true, then G-D guided it. If it isnot, G-D did something else.
"And unless those views are those of your rebbe or those of someone of such great authority that it trumps all counter views, there is nothing to speak of either. "
So no one is ever allowed to argue with their Rebbe?? This is news to me. Rav Shechter argues with the Rav's opinion all the time. SO do many talmidim of many Rabbonim. I am sure that even your beliefs do not mimic your own Rabbis beliefs 100%
>>>I was arguing that in the time of RASHI corporealism was an accepted idea.
ReplyDeleteBased on your own logic, why not today? As you wrote, "Now if a person finds one version more suitable for them then by all mens follow that mesorah,"
OK, so Josh may decide he likes the "gedolim" the Ra'avad may refer to (the KS"M and Ikkarim have a different girsa) and that is the mesorah he chooses to follow. Why not? If you disagree with my assertion that the consensus of Achronim determine what views are acceptable and which are not you are stuck.
"Please explain to me by your logic why I can't open a shulchan aruch and start paskening shach and taz based on which appeals to me better. It's the mesorah I want to follow that's important, not what my community has accepted as valid, right?"
ReplyDeleteI think I already explained this, but it might be unpublished at not brisk so I will do you the favor of telling you.
YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW ONE MESORAH! You can choose which one, but it must be one. It is like for hilchos shabbos, I have to paskin like Rav Shechter or like Smiras Shabbos kehilchasa, I can't have it both ways. Like if I brush my teeth on shabbos, something rav shechter says you can do, but shmiras shabbos says you can't, then I can't wear a retainer on shabbos, something shimaras shabbos says you can do, but rav shechter says you can't.
There needs to be a mesorah followed consistently.
Also, if you are a competent Rav, then you can poskin halacha. If you know all the issues involved then you do paskin halacha. Meaning looking at the sources and deciding. How do you think Ravs figure out nidda questions or shabbos questions or every day questions?
The reason everyone should not poskin for themselves is that not everyone is fluent in all of shulchan orech and the nosei kalim. However, if I am proficient in hilchos shabbos, then I can make those decisions.
"Why not? If you disagree with my assertion that the consensus of Achronim determine what views are acceptable and which are not you are stuck."
ReplyDeleteYou have never shown me a consensus of anything! You have said 10-12 names, but no consensus of all 300 or so achronim that have existed in the past 300-400 years.
Now, the problem with corporealism is that back in Rashi's day it might have made sense, but nowadays it seems illogical. That is why even though people like the shvus yaakov saying that the earth is flat does not tell me I should believe the world is flat.
Or when people like Rav Kanievsky, a great gadol, says Jews have more or less teeth than a non-Jew, I am still not going to believe it nor should it be ok to believe it, because it is illogical.
ReplyDeleteOK, so why can't I just say I consistantly follow the Rambam and just toss out all the places the Shulchan Aruch and Rama tell us to pasken otherwise? After all, Yu told me "yoreh yoreh b'isur v'heter" -- why should I listen to the Beis Yosef if I know better?
ReplyDeleteYou can, that is called the Taymanim! If you want to do that, that is an accepted form of Judaism!
ReplyDeleteI'm getting tired of this, so let's cut to the chase. Most of us are unfortunately like R' Hershel Shachter, not R' Akiva Eiger, not the Ketzos and not R' Chaim. For any one of us mere mortals who are not beki'im in kol hatorah (which is what it takes to pasken) to attempt to not only take on the burden of deciding for ourselves the most fundamental issues in halacha and haskafa, but to even disregard the opinions of others far greater than ourselves in these areas, is simply ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteBaruch, still waiting to hear if you disagree with this.
>>>You can, that is called the Taymanim! If you want to do that, that is an accepted form of Judaism!
ReplyDeleteWrong. I, an Ashkenazi Jew with Ashkenazic parents and teachers, have no right to simply toss out the entire heritage of my family, teachers, and that of the rest of klal yisrael and start doing what some other group of Jews presently living or who lived in the past did. This is an open gemara, Pesachim 50, al titosh... etc. You can't even go against the minhagim accepted by your community. Your facts are wrong.
Chaim B. when did I disagree on this? However, if there is a competent Rav that you wish to follow that is completely acceptable. For you to tell me I am not allowed to follow so and so, even if you have never heard of him, but I think he is a genius, that is ludicrous! For you to say I can not follow rationalism is the worst type of intolerance and ignorance.
ReplyDelete"Wrong. I, an Ashkenazi Jew with Ashkenazic parents and teachers, have no right to simply toss out the entire heritage of my family, teachers, and that of the rest of klal yisrael and start doing what some other group of Jews presently living or who lived in the past did. This is an open gemara, Pesachim 50, al titosh... etc. You can't even go against the minhagim accepted by your community. Your facts are wrong."
ReplyDeleteSo now you are paskening base on gemorah?
If you want to join the taymani community you are allowed. How do you think so many sefardim are named haashkenazi? Because they moved from a ashkenazi community and became sefardi.
ReplyDeleteOh also, I hope you meant not like R Herschel Shachter.
ReplyDeleteI am speaking of a consensus among talmidei chachamim about issues that relate to halacha and hashkafa. You are talking consensus of askanim about politics. World of difference.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about askanim. I have tremendous respect for some askanim. I'm talking about how haredi gedolim relate to the problems of the dor. Child abuse and hafganot for example very much involve hashkafic and halachic issues (Dr. Eidensohn's been addressing the former a lot on his blog)
Given that important distinction, can you please point to any specific statement I have written with respect to how we arrive at halachic and hashkafic concusions that you disagree with?
"...the consensus of Achronim determine what views are acceptable and which are not...
So no matter who disagrees with your belief in evolution -- whether it is YU Roshei Yeshiva or otherwise -- you will stick to your guns. Is this because 1)...or 2)...
A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.
Long story short, I found myself interested in Judaism because it struck me as the most logical and rational religion. As it became more and more mystical as I stayed in yeshiva, I still worked it all out in my head (I half-joked that in high school when I explored religions, I vowed to myself that I could never be part of a religion which was extremely similar to DnD, yet the more frum I became the more I realized how very similar Judaism was to that game) but at one point I became very troubled and called my rabbi to have a long discussion about it. He confirmed my gut feeling on these issues and advised me to be more realistic on others where I was being crazy (e.g. I originally wanted to go to kollel my whole life without a plan). So I originally felt that what I was doing was wrong but consulted my rabbi and he confirmed it was wrong. He would encourage me to be more open-minded and I try to follow that advice.
(FTR, I think chareidim have been and will continue in the future to be more successful in inspiring religious fervor and even halachic observance than the Modern Orthodox. That being said, I dispute the way the haredi world thinks and thus it is impossible for me to live in the haredi world)
R' Chaim B: You asked me some questions, I would appreciate it if I may ask you one --
ReplyDeleteR' Bloch, a tremendous talmid chacham, declared it heretical to believe in heliocentrism:
Can you name three living gedolim who believe in heliocentrism?
>>>"...the consensus of Achronim determine what views are acceptable and which are not...
ReplyDeleteSo you believe, as Josh does, that you can simply pick and choose and you see fit? Can you believe in the corporeality of G-d because E-man discovered "gedolim" mentioned in a Ra'avad who held this view and it appeals to you? Can you pick and choose as you see fit among poskim in hilchos Shabbos?
I don't see the halachic issues in any of the topics you bring up. I am not aware of a consensus of gedolim who pasken child abuse is permitted or who have encouraged disrespecful and violent hafganot. You lost me.
>>>R' Bloch, a tremendous talmid chacham, declared it heretical to believe in heliocentrism:
Can you name three living gedolim who believe in heliocentrism?
No I can't. Which is exactly why I think one has to be attuned to which views become adopted by the mainstream consensus and which do not.
Let me end off with this. IIRC it is the Tumim who says that although in dinei mamonis you can say kom li like a minority view (because in mamonos ain holchin achar harov), you cannot say kim li like a view contrary to the Beis Yosef. The reason why? Because the S.A. has been accepted as the final arbiter of halacha by klal yisrael.
Consensus and agreement among a majority of authorities creates a binding obligation.
>>>So now you are paskening base on gemorah?
ReplyDeleteErr... yes. That is what Orthodox Judaism is based on. If you disagree with an open gemara, there is not much point to debating anything as we do not share the most basic set of assumptions. End of discussion.
So you would agree with the gemorah in chullin that says you can eat chicken with milk..... Are you serious????
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I need to take a look at that gemorah because I disagree with how you understand many things. Just like I think you misunderstood Rav Solovetchik and many other things. I disagree with you. Surprise! Um I am not sure how that Gemorah says you are not allowed to follow an accepted mesorah though? That you might have to explain a little.
ReplyDelete"Err... yes. That is what Orthodox Judaism is based on. If you disagree with an open gemara, there is not much point to debating anything as we do not share the most basic set of assumptions. End of discussion."
ReplyDeleteNo you are not allowed to paskin based on gemorah, if you think you are then we are from different forms of Judaism. You can paskin based on Rishonim and achronim, but YOU, Chaim B. can not paskin based on gemorahs... that is not allowed anymore!
Also, the shulchan orech is not the end all be all. Ashkenazim do not follow it anytime the rema argues and even then there are still many times that we follow opinions in the magen avraham or the gra and so on. I am not sure I am following how you think we paskin halacha nowadays.
In the end of the day I will tell u what my Rebbeim at Shaalvim told me. You can choose who ypour posek is, but you must be consistent with that. One may not pick and choose.
ReplyDeleteRabbi:
ReplyDeleteCan you believe in the corporeality of G-d because E-man discovered "gedolim" mentioned in a Ra'avad who held this view and it appeals to you?
I am not clear on this issue.
Can you pick and choose as you see fit among poskim in hilchos Shabbos?
No.
I am not aware of a consensus of gedolim who pasken child abuse is permitted or who have encouraged disrespecful and violent hafganot. You lost me.
Well, one issue is how child abusers, protesters, and -- while we're at it -- rabbis who agree to steal from the government are to be treated.
No I can't. Which is exactly why I think one has to be attuned to which views become adopted by the mainstream consensus and which do not.
It sounds to me like you're saying that you know more about Judaism and how to poskin matters of who is heretical than R' Bloch. If indeed as you imply the consensus of gedolim believe in heliocentrism, R' Bloch then declared all of those gedolim as believing in heresy! Is that indeed what you are implying, rabbi?
***
The underlying issue here -- as "telling" as it may be (to use your lashon) that I'm bringing this up again -- is Daas Torah. You believe that your views of life and Judaism and the views of those whom you also believe to hold legitimate perspectives must be the only logical ones. Anybody who believes other views is ignorant, evil, or perhaps some other perjorative that I can't think of now which stands to put his views on these issues in contempt. That's fine, well, and good. But I hope you understand that those of us who don't look at the world through your lens can't always be "brought" to your perspective but will see things differently and make decisions in our life not due to some overwhelming anti-haredi bias but simply due to the way we see things.
Baruch, it is not the way we see things, but the way that the Rabbonim that we follow, that are not like Chaim B's Rabbonim, see things. Because in the end of the day, we are still following Rabbonim, just not the Rabbonim that Chaim B. likes.
ReplyDelete"'i will say that Judaism is Falsehood and Nonsense',
ReplyDeleteAnd the arbiter of what is falsehood and nonsense is... your own seichel of course. Exactly the problem."
a religion that denigrates the use of the seichel is likely a stupid religion. meanwhile, Chazal did consider sevara in certain instances to be equal to a proof from a pasuk. and for certain things, one should not rely on a pesak by a Sanhedrin, because it is a case of "zil gmor." and a navi sheker can be determined by objectively determining whether the prediction matched reality. and the yerushalmi (as opposed to Bavli) said "yemin usmol" means only if they tell you on right that it is right and left that it is left, but not vice versa. and rav yaakov kaminetzsky used his own sechel to determine that the rambam was wrong about the composition of the moon, when he witnessed Neil Armstrong step on it. and many other examples, but I won't list them all here. (or is it the "your" part rather than the "sechel" part?)
the way you seem to put it, as it stands, *Christians* don't use sechel, but rather Christian consensus. and Jews don't use sechel, but rather Jewish consensus. the only difference is not the silliness of one or the other, but that you happened to have a tradition from your teachers, and they have a tradition from their teachers.
"Instead of using hypotheticals about teeth as an escape clause, why not deal with reality?"
this is not hypothetical. this is a reflection of the level of scientific knowledge of some of the Gedolim who set the "consensus". another example is an article against evolution by Rav Sternbuch, which betrayed an appalling ignorance of the history of Darwinism, where this history was the very premise of the article.
another example is how in many frum communities, it is considered unacceptable to say that any species became extinct, such that they believe that dinosaurs and other animals, such as the dodo bird, are in hiding. according to your reasoning i should be compelled to agree with them, even where they are extremely ill-informed on matters of science, as a result of attitudes towards Torah UMaddah.
or a "masorah" that exists among some people (possibly starting from the time of Freud) that psychology is a pseudoscience, or else will not work on Jews because Jews have an extra, different, soul. this is a real position. do i have the right to pick and choose in this, or would i be compelled by consensus or what my particular rabbeim held?
if the consensus, from people ignorant in establishing provenance of manuscripts but experts in Yoreh Deah, becomes that the writings of Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch about Chazal's fallibility is a forgery, need i accept this ignorant consensus? if you say i do, then the religion that requires false beliefs (rather than merely allowing it) is a False and Nonsensical one. And that is no hypothetical. These are real issues, being debated today. The tooth case just brought it more to the fore.
in terms of other statements, please don't attribute positions to me, even hypothetically, because i don't think that these proposed examples captures the point i am trying to make.
kol tuv,
josh
R. Chaim,
ReplyDeleteI have a rule not to accept a quote without checking. The sentence before the one you quoted from Halachik Man reads:
"While we recognize his opinion on more complicated problems such as prophecy,teleology and creation, we completely ignore most of his rational notions regarding the commandments...."
You have therefore misread the Rav. His discussion is on Ta'amei Hamitzvot and not Rambam's as you label "rationalistic" approach in general.
I will call your attention to Rav Kook's letter to Ze'ev Yavetz where he very vehemently criticizes Yavetz for attacking Rambam's rationalistic approach. He writes that were it not for Rambam Judaism could not stand up to its critics in the modern era. And please check my quote! :-)
Oh and one more thing. In your search for Acharonim that go on Rambam's derech, (though I agree with R. Josh that the sechel triumphs - see Rav Kook on false Yire'a) how about R. Meir Simcha, The Rogatchover and in our generation R. Gedalye Nadel to name a few that come to mind at once?
ReplyDelete>>>It sounds to me like you're saying that you know more about Judaism and how to poskin matters of who is heretical than R' Bloch.
ReplyDeleteChas v'shalom. R' Bloch is a da'as yachid in this regard not because I say so, but simply because no other gedolim to my knowledge had adopted such a view. Are you disputing that fact?
Da'as Torah is not the issue. I have as much respect for those who follow the view of RYBS and Rav Kook and those who follow the R' Elyashiv or the Satmar Rav. You are correct that I have no respect for those who create their own mesorah based only on what they think is right or wrong.
David, your last point has me regretting that I did not include a part of this post that I started to write and then took out. I'll bl"n do a separate post on it; you raise a good issue.
ReplyDeleteI am aware that RYBS was addressing ta'amei hamitzvos, but I think the end of that paragraph speaks more broadly about the Moreh's influence. But forget RYBS -- go to the bookshelf, look around at the shiurim given in your neighborhood.
Oh, BTW, you should dig up R' Kook's quote on yiras shamayim vs. yiras hamachshava (one of my favorites).
ReplyDeleteChas v'shalom. R' Bloch is a da'as yachid in this regard not because I say so, but simply because no other gedolim to my knowledge had adopted such a view. Are you disputing that fact?
ReplyDeleteYou ignored the substantial part of what I wrote: "If indeed as you imply the consensus of gedolim believe in heliocentrism, R' Bloch then declared all of those gedolim as believing in heresy! Is that indeed what you are implying, rabbi?"
Da'as Torah is not the issue. I have as much respect for those who follow the view of RYBS and Rav Kook and those who follow the R' Elyashiv or the Satmar Rav. You are correct that I have no respect for those who create their own mesorah based only on what they think is right or wrong.
But I think your definition of "mesorah" is overstated to the point where it has become Daas Torah. Out of curiosity, is it possible in your view for somebody to disagree with R' Boruch Ber's conclusion that Torah im Derech Eretz was a horaas shaah?
In any event, what you're referring to isn't what happened with R' Slifkin (which, if we go back to when I remember this whole debate starting on your blog, is whom it surrounded). R' Slifkin is a talmid of R' Aryeh Carmell. R' Carmel's support was apparent: http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/RavCarmellReiteration.jpg
I know you want him to get public reiterations of support from big MO talmidei chachamim, but that would only fuel the flames since most haredim are not like you and do not give such credence to their views. If you wanted to resolve this problem for yourself, you would ask R' Slifkin for a private communication detailing his private supporters and then resolve to ask them your shaila. With the exception of R' Carmel they are, thank G-d, still alive.
>>>Is that indeed what you are implying, rabbi?"
ReplyDeleteIf that's what he said, the answer is yes. You realize that every time the Shach and Taz disagree in an area of hilchos treifos it means the other side was eating tarfus, right? But by definition the Taz has broad enough shoulders to be confident in his own definition of what tarfus means regardless of the Shach's kashes, and the same with those who disagree with R' Bloch. Mai shena between the cases that you seem to find this shocking?
>>>is it possible in your view for somebody to disagree with R' Boruch Ber's conclusion that Torah im Derech Eretz was a horaas shaah?
R' Breuer did, no? If you are I did, that would be a different story.
Let's leave Slifkin out of this please. And again, you are contradicting yourself. Telling me you take what he says as valid because you asked R' Shachter is a completely different position than telling me (as Josh writes) that you can pick and choose whatever you like to believe in based on your own conclusions irrespective of what the rest of klal yisrael holds. As far as I am concerned I think the fact that you won't even state with certainty that someone who believes in G-d has a body is an apikores when no posek alive today would have any doubts on the issue is a red flag that undermines your entire argument. If it's you vs. the rest of klal yisrael, R' Shachter included, then you have a problem.
SO according to Chaim B. if Rav Kanievsky says Jews have 31 teeth and goyim have 32 or vice versa one is not alowed to argue with this opinion unless another "Gadol" argues with him. Is this correct, according to you Chaim? Also, since the Shvus Yaakov says the world is flat we can not argue with this assertion, unless there is another great gadol taht argues with him. However, if we are ashkenaz then we have to follow the shvus yaakov over any sephardic Rav that says the world is round.
ReplyDeleteThis does not sound like Judaism. It sounds like you are trying to say reality is known based on Gedolim. That is strange.
Chaim B:"As far as I am concerned I think the fact that you won't even state with certainty that someone who believes in G-d has a body is an apikores when no posek alive today would have any doubts on the issue is a red flag that undermines your entire argument. "
Who says a person with this view is an apikores? The Rambam, but the sefer haikarim does not. the sefer haikarim says you only have to believe in three fundamental principles, G-D's incorporeality is not one of them. Either way, that is beside the point.
What it comes down to is that you think reality in Judaism is based on whether a Rav says it or not. This might be how we paskin halacha, but hashkafa is a bit different.
What it boils down to is that you do not accept the Judaism that Rabbi Josh is advocating, why, I couldn't tell you. Probably because your Rebbe said so. If you read up a little about Jewish history then you would see this attitude, aka Rabbi Josh's, has existed ever since the beginning of the mesorah. True, there was also a mystical attitude that existed, but i am not denying that, you are denying the rationalistic approach though, which boggles the mind.
If you want to believe that the Baal Shem Tov walked on water or could travel a million miles in an instant go ahead, but don;t say believing that it did not happen is against the mesorah.
3) The statement that certain views of Rishonim have become less acceptable over time is not a strange concept, but is an idea that we live with every time we open a Shulchan Aruch and follow one view to the exclusion of others. Asking, "Are you labelling the Rambam an apikores?" if you reject his philosophy makes as much sense as asking, "Are you labelling the Rambam a mechalel Shabbos?" if we happen to follow other views in a hilchos shabbos sugya.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem lies in the equation of philosophical ideas (which are either compatible or incompatible with Judaism, categories that cannot - particularly to the extent that those philosophies deal with a general approach to torah and mitzvos, and to events occuring long ago - vary over time) with acceptible action based on halacha (categories which can, in fact, change over time, as psak accretes). The equivalency is a false one.
For the sake of the traditionalists, can someone please clarify some points:
ReplyDeleteA) Denial of mysticism is ok regardless of what the Achronim think
Or
B) One can rely on Rav Hirsh who denied it (please cite to his comments)
You deny the revelations of Arizal, R’ Chaim Vital, the magids’ conversation with Beis Yosef, etc. based on what exactly?
A) It can’t be true because you don’t think it is possible
Or
B) You are reluctant to say that Rishonim erred
Not Brisk I don't understand something, even if there were only Rishonim that believed in Rationalism, that would still make it valid. Obviously Rishonim are greater than achronim. This is also why Rav Moshe and countless others use Rishonim to pasken and not achronim unless there are no Rishonim on the subject. What is your deal with that?
ReplyDelete"is a completely different position than telling me (as Josh writes) that you can pick and choose whatever you like to believe in based on your own conclusions irrespective of what the rest of klal yisrael holds."
ReplyDeleteto clarify my position, of course one can pick and choose. one might well be an apikores for maintaining this position, if it is both a false position and one that it judged heretical, but of course one can pick and choose. and so someone who believes in God's corporeality might well be an apikores. unless of course Rambam and others were ch"v wrong and perverted Judaism away from its true beliefs.
not that i don't have backing from my teachers in this, but my mind recoils as the anti-intellectualism that seems to drive the other side. i gave examples other than the teeth (psychology, and that dinosaurs and dodos are in hiding) which you did not respond to; i could give more, but probably at some point you would yourself maintain these beliefs yourself and thus consider them quite reasonable rather than merely ridiculous. and this because there is no real thinking involved. i would rather risk Divine wrath than be a non-thinker who would believe any and every thing i was told to believe. as it stands, it seems that if you were told you had to believe Hashem was corporeal, you would believe that; the opposite, you would believe that. the rambam had reasons for rejecting one position in favor of the other.
another example: it seems that many chareidim believe in mermaids, because rashi mentioned them. in the latest hoax off Haifa, many chareidim were very excited. indeed, it seems that a required belief in mermaids may be part of the latest Chaim BeEmunasam, endorsed by various Gedolim as the required and only masorah. yet if you tell me i must believe in mermaids, or that this is even a question of whether i must believe in them, i would laugh.
i think you are mistaken in putting the alternatives as mysticism vs. rationalism, where rationalism is driving people off the derech. rather, rationalism is really saving Torah for many Jewish people from being rejected, because there are legitimate questions and the mystical approach is not a convincing or true answer. even though people who are not rationalists are often uneducated enough to understand even the basis of the question, so as to realize that (in many cases) rationalism is bringing people closer to Hashem rather than the opposite.
kol tuv,
josh
If that's what he said, the answer is yes. You realize that every time the Shach and Taz disagree in an area of hilchos treifos it means the other side was eating tarfus, right?
ReplyDeleteMaybe in one kehilla it was to be considered treif and in other kosher? Machlokes haposkim in various matters still exists. But in hashkafa to claim that *everybody* who doesn't believe such-and-such inyan is a kofer is a different matter. IIRC there were some modern 20th century rabbanim btw who adopted the Raivad's position, including the posek R' Hayyim Hirschensohn.
R' Breuer did, no? If you are I did, that would be a different story.
R' Breuer, in "The Relevancy of TIDE" disagrees and writes: "Anyone who has but a fleeting insight into the life and work of Rav Hirsch will realize that his Torah im Derech Eretz formula was never intended by him him as a Horo'as Sho'oh." This to me is the most important point of what we're discussing.
And again, you are contradicting yourself...
I don't see how I contradicted myself here or elsewhere.
As far as I am concerned I think the fact that you won't even state with certainty that someone who believes in G-d has a body is an apikores when no posek alive today would have any doubts on the issue is a red flag that undermines your entire argument. If it's you vs. the rest of klal yisrael, R' Shachter included, then you have a problem.
Firstly, I don't know that every posek alive today has no doubts on the issue. And secondly, as we discussed earlier with regards to Daas Torah, I do take positions on hashkafa that living poskim don't necessarily agree with. Thirdly, I don't understand what you mean by "klal yisrael."
And unless those views are those of your rebbe or those of someone of such great authority that it trumps all counter views, there is nothing to speak of either.
ReplyDeleteWhat if your mesorah from your rebbe is that a person is entitled to use his sechel, and/or that something which appears clearly true (e.g. scientifically proven) should be accepted and one should figure out how to reconcile it with Torah? Some people have a mesorah like that, you know.
>>>You can, that is called the Taymanim! If you want to do that, that is an accepted form of Judaism!
ReplyDeleteWrong. I, an Ashkenazi Jew with Ashkenazic parents and teachers, have no right to simply toss out the entire heritage of my family, teachers, and that of the rest of klal yisrael and start doing what some other group of Jews presently living or who lived in the past did.
Can someone who was born into a Dati-Leumi family, who say Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzmaut etc., decide to become charedi?
two more points:
ReplyDelete1) is a Lubavitcher whose teachers and parents are meshichists obligated to believe that the Rebbe is mashiach? or can he pick and choose to follow others who maintain otherwise? what if those parents and teachers are Boreinu-niks?
2) "I will simply point out that R' Moshe Tendler and R' Ahron Soloveitchik among YU Roshei Yeshiva forcefully reject belief in evolution in their writing."
You can read some of Rabbi Tendler on the subject here:
http://www.lookstein.org/articles/evolutionary_theory.htm
Rabbi Tendler rejects it because he believes that it is false and unscientific! Not because he feels one must ignore evidence and truth, and that one may not think, but must instead follow chareidi consensus and "masorah"! He writes in that article:
"We are obligated to teach the truths of Hashem's interaction with the natural world.
שבת ע"ה.- אמר ר' שמעון בן פזי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא כל היודע לחשב בתקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב- עליו הכתוב אומר "ואת פעל ד' לא יביטו ומעשה ידיו לא יראו" (ישע' ה, י"ב)... א"ר יוחנן מנין שמצוה על האדם לחשב תקופות ומזלות שנאמר (דברים ד, ו) "ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים" איזו חכמה ובינה שהיא לעיני העמים? זה חישוב תקופות ומזלות.
…to refuse to master the science of astronomy is to refuse to see Hashem as He interacts with the natural world. Rav Yochanan added it is a mitzvah to do so because it fulfills the commandment of Hashem to study and apply Torah knowledge. This is the wisdom and the understanding that the other nations appreciate."
I have also personally heard him say that Chazal can be wrong in science because they made one mistake, namely believing that yesh chochma bagoyim. If one could convince Rabbi Tendler that evolution was true and scientific, then he would maintain it. And rejection of evolution does not become more or less palatable because a YU rosh yeshiva says it. What is important here is the process, not the particular conclusion.
kt,
josh
>>>Firstly, I don't know that every posek alive today has no doubts on the issue
ReplyDeleteOK, name the contemporary posek upon who you rely that holds one can take a position contrary to the ikkarim?
And still waiting for E-man to explain how an Ashkenazi Jew can become a Teimani when there is an open gemara (Pesachim 50) prohibiting it.
Until then, there is nothing to talk about because we simply do not share the same set of assumptions. I feel bound to comply with the gemara and poskim.
Shlomo Ya'akov, if your seichel tells you that Jesus is the Messiah, are you allowed to believe that? "Rabbi" Moshe Rosen (that's how he signs his name) thinks so and his "talmidim" have a personal mesorah from him that it is OK.
>>>Maybe in one kehilla it was to be considered treif and in other kosher?
ReplyDeleteExactly the point. So what kehillah are you part of that thinks it is OK to believe that G-d has a body? There is none that I know of which exists, certainly none guided by talmidei chachamim (see Tosfos Pesachim 50a regarding minhagim made up by the masses).
>>>I do take positions on hashkafa that living poskim don't necessarily agree with.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I missed this line. I guess that settles it because I feel bound by the decisions of achronim (e.g. the Chasam Sofer and many, many others who look at the ikkarim as the definition of the basics of Jewish belief) and you feel you can make your own way without their guidance.
That's what I meant about contradicting yourself. For me, TIDE is a question of Hirsch vs. R' Baruch Ber and others, a fight in which I am a spectator. For you, even if no one in the entire Torah world held of TIDE, if you felt it was OK, then your seichel trumps the view of everyone else, from the Vilna Gaon right down the line.
Josh W., what's with the teeth always?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you always mix that in?
Anyway, there is no way you can prove empirically whether G-d has a body or not. Even if I grant you everything you have written about facts and reality and all that jazz, how are you going to defend Baruch who thinks you can rely on some unnamed gedolim the Ra'avad rejects and believe G-d has a body because your seichel may say so? Or how are you going to defend E-man's contention that an Ashkenazi Jew can suddenly start following Teimani minhagim because he feels like it? Can you prove to me empirically that Teimani minhagim are right? Ain hanadon domeh lra'aya, so I don't know what you keep going on about.
Chaim, I think that my question was much more relevant than your Jesus question. Plus, I asked first. I am asking you again:
ReplyDeleteCan someone who was born into a Dati-Leumi family, who say Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzmaut etc., decide to become charedi?
I also have another question for you. When you say "consensus," do you mean "general consensus" or do you mean "absolute consensus"?
And with regard to, say, the possibility of Chazal being wrong in science, do you claim that no rabbi accepts this?
Josh W., b'shlama if we were dealing with people who otherwise have mainstream hashkafos but who happen to believe in evolution and think it can be synthesized with Torah thought, that would be one thing. Such an idea is not so far-fetched that it should not deserve to be considered as at least a "yesh omrim" -- it is not the mainstream view, but it is a far cry from kefirah.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not what we are speaking of. What we are speaking of is people who think it is not kefirah to think G-d has a body or who think you can pick and choose minhagim and psak as you see fit even in areas of halacha. Just read the previous comments. That type of stuff is outside everyone's ballpark.
Of course, I invite any of you to name which contemporary talmid chacham or posek you are relying on that holds G-d has a body or that I can wake up one morning and adopt Teimani minhagim if I feel like it. If no one alive in the Torah worlds holds this way as far as I am concerned the discussion is over.
>>>Can someone who was born into a Dati-Leumi family, who say Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzmaut etc., decide to become charedi?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what that means because these are socio-political and not halachic categories. These type shaylos were addressed in the 18th century by poskim who discuss whether one may change his nusach from Ashkenaz to Sefard.
>>>I also have another question for you. When you say "consensus," do you mean "general consensus" or do you mean "absolute consensus"?
Don't understand the chiluk you are making.
>>>And with regard to, say, the possibility of Chazal being wrong in science, do you claim that no rabbi accepts this?
Some do, some don't. Which if the three basic points in my post is this relevant to? See my response to Josh W. and I invite you to answer as well.
"Josh W., what's with the teeth always? Why do you always mix that in?"
ReplyDeleteit is you who are always using teeth as an escape clause. after you objected -- though i don't accept your objection -- i gave several other examples that don't involve teeth. and yet you choose to focus on teeth, because you have an easy way to reject that one.
meanwhile, three prominent rabbis, two of whom pasken on medical issues, believe the teeth thing. and i explained why i bring it in. i mention it because it is a perfect example of something even *you* would agree is nonsense, as opposed to things you might not agree is nonsense, and thus think is arguable. and also because it is evidence that those who are forming your modern "consensus" may not be knowledgeable enough in the area to be able to put forth a credible position.
for example, when the Nodah Biyhuda was asked about the proper pronunciation of Hashem's name, he said that this was not a question for rabbis, but for balei mikra. See here.
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/11/noda-biyhuda-orach-chaim-siman-2-on.html
Much of chareidi consensus is formed, imho, by those who are ignorant of the relevant facts of the matter. For example, whether the Zohar is authentic or a late 13th century forgery is something for which there is a general consensus. But those forming the consensus have almost certainly not read through Shadal's vikuach to weigh the arguments; nor are they as knowledgeable in the subject matter of its history as Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman. The same for whether Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a secret Sabbatean. Psak involves both knowledge and skill in halachic sources and process, but also knowledge of the metzius, and in case after case, if the people involved in forming this "consensus " do not have a proper understanding of the metzius, then any "consensus" or "masorah" I would consider non-binding. People who are ignorant of the modern science of psychology claim to have a "masorah" that psychology is nonsense, or else does not work on Jews. Such a "masorah" is nonsense.
More cases are cases of "teeth" than you may realize. Unfortunately, since you do have a somewhat chareidi viewpoint, there may simply be instances in which you do not realize it, because you maintain this belief yourself! "teeth" is useful because it is something that you yourself recognize as nonsense.
more in a different comment.
kt,
josh
"if your seichel tells you that Jesus is the Messiah, are you allowed to believe that"
ReplyDeleteif your seichel tells you that Jesus is the Messiah, then you do not care whether silly Pharisee belief lets you believe that.
and if you are on the surface a Christian, and were born such, then if you believe that Jesus is *not* the Messiah, then you are not Christian and do not care whether according to the Christian faith you are *allowed* to believe that.
there are of course a fairly *limited* number of beliefs (13, more or less) which have been established as principles of Jewish faith, such that one who maintains other beliefs is outside the pale, from the perspective of people who do believe these things. if you are one who doesn't believe it, then what do you care what foolish people who believe nonsense think about you? except of course that it is bad for shidduchim.
i'll end for now with a note that i am taking somewhat extreme positions here for the sake of making a point. much (though not all) of my rationalism indeed comes from the way i was raised and taught. (including the very question in play, as to whether "consensus" trumps seichel, for those who actually possess seichel.)
kt,
josh
Chaim, thank you for answering my questions. I have another one: What if one has a mesorah that he may use his sechel to decide what is correct, based on science etc., as long as it does not contradict the ikkarim?
ReplyDeleteJosh, the difference between all the cases you offer and the case of the corporeality of G-d is very simple. Believing in fairy tales makes you a fool. Believing G-d has a body makes you an apikores.
ReplyDeleteInstead of using divisive terms like chareidi, let's talk about the Torah world, people whether in YU or Beni Brak, who know how to learn. Is there consensus among the Torah world that mermaids exist or how many teeth people have? No, there is not. I can think of quite a few Roshei Yeshiva who would agree with you on these issues. But I can't think of a single Rosh Yeshiva or talmid chacham who would agree that G-d has a body.
I do not ask for you to agree with me about mermaids, evolution, or teeth. I do think you should admit that certain beliefs -- like the corporeality of G-d -- are outside the pale because there is a consensus in klal yisrael that these views are wrong.
Will you concur with what I wrote or not?
>>>What if one has a mesorah that he may use his sechel to decide what is correct, based on science etc., as long as it does not contradict the ikkarim?
ReplyDeleteI think my response to Josh answered this. You are asking a very speculative question so it is hard to know the answer. Look, we use our brains all day to engage in secular pursuits. The mesorah does not speak to whether you should eat Cheerios or Rice Crispies for breakfast. What are you driving at?
The thing I don't get is, what consensus is Chaim talking about? If he means, broadly speaking, the non-Zionist yeshiva world, how does he get off respecting R. Kook and R. Soloveitchik? If he means a broader world, how does he get off calling consenses developed more or less by the mesorah of the yeshiva world consensus? You can make a very, very good case that consensus developed about corporeality, but that is because to my knowledge there is no mesorah in Judaism which continues to see God as corporeal, except at the popular level (and of course one might argue that popular religion is also a mesorah). But how can you say that the consensus decided against rationalism and even the right to develop maverick (but not antinomian) opinions? Where, when and how did this happen?
ReplyDeleteI've read reasonable and rational views in the writings of dozens of recognized talmidei chachomi, gedolim and poskim. Where do you get off saying they and their mesorah was agreed out of existence?
"Even if I grant you... how are you going to defend Baruch... Or how are you going to defend E-man's..."
ReplyDeletetruth be told, i don't really have the time to read everything put forth by every person in every thread i participate in. and even if i did, i might not agree with them in every point they make. so i don't really have to set about defending them. they may defend themselves.
whether or not Hashem has a body is indeed ultimately unknowable. but various rishonim apparently did debate it, based on what evidence they had. this evidence was principally their own seichels, as influenced by the "science" of philosophy; tradition; pesukim and statements of Chazal, and methods of interpreting the same.
perhaps if one set about the task of evaluating all this from scratch, like a Rishon, then one could indeed come to such a conclusion. even in terms of halacha, it is a matter of debate whether one can do this. in terms of halacha at least, i do follow the position that Ravina and Rav Ashi were sof horaah, but that one (who is of sufficient caliber) can and should disagree with Rishonim if necessary. (as did the Gra, in some matters.)
i *might* be able to persuade you, if i was so inclined and you were so inclined, to believe that Hashem can assume human form, based on pashut peshat in parshas Vayera, and then extrapolating from there to other instances like in parshas Bereishis. (indeed, it seems that Shadal believed that the Avos believed in a corporeal God, and that such was beneficial for maintaining a kesher to Hashem, though he himself quite likely believed in a noncorporeal God.) if i believed this, and you believed this, would we be apikorsim? yes, according to rambam and *almost* universal consensus of Jews today. (some Chabad might not agree.) but from our perspective, if we believed this, should we care that we are apikorsim according to a false standard? probably not. on the other hand, we might be rightly modest and realize our own limitations, such that we realize that we are not capable enough to make such a determination for ourselves, and that we should trust in the mad skills of Rambam and others, who investigated and established this for us.
kt,
josh
What Fred said. There is NOBODY who accepts corporealism today. But there are plenty of people who accept rationalism!
ReplyDeleteI think my response to Josh answered this. You are asking a very speculative question so it is hard to know the answer.
No, it's not speculative. What if one's rebbe says that it is legitimate to accept that which is scientifically proven, and to reconcile it with Torah somehow. And let's say that there is something that is scientifically proven but there is no Godol who endorses it. What then?
"Or how are you going to defend E-man's contention that an Ashkenazi Jew can suddenly start following Teimani minhagim because he feels like it? Can you prove to me empirically that Teimani minhagim are right?"
ReplyDeletehalacha might be different, since historical correctness intersects with other halachic considerations such as minhag. and i have argued with Teimanim in the past on this count. Many of them *do* believe that everyone should accept their practices, because of their preservation of the masorah, while everyone else's was corrupted. i disagree with this premise.
but if you *could* empirically prove that Teimani practices accord with original intent of the gemara, then yes. but not, in my opinion, because you are allowed to pick and choose what is most convenient, but because a posek is required to attempt to arrive at the truth.
kt,
josh
S,
ReplyDeletePlease point to where in this post the word "rationalism" is even mentioned.
As I wrote on N.B.Y., the modern day "rationalism" bears no resemblance to the Rishonim or later authorities that you refer to. The modern so-called "rationalism" champions the right to pick and choose in any and all areas of halacha and hashkafa according to one's own dictates. Just read some of the comments here!
Instead of the nebulous term rationalism, let's try this: would you agree with me that since there is a consensus in Judaism that G-d has no body a person cannot subscribe to this belief even if it makes sense to them?
If the answer is yes, you do agree to that, then you are clearly not in the camp of the "rationalists" who think their seichel trumps the mesorah even on that. Will the real "rationalists" please step forward.
"But I can't think of a single Rosh Yeshiva or talmid chacham who would agree that G-d has a body."
ReplyDelete"There is NOBODY who accepts corporealism today."
compare this with
"Atzmus Ein Sof came down in a body, who speaks Yiddish, english, Russian, in order to be mekarev yidden to yiddishkeit."
that was the Lubavitcher Rebbe. and apparently a good many Lubavitchers believe this. see my discussion with the Real Shliach on this parshablog post.
if consensus, rather than truth, determines what is acceptable for people to believe, that corporealism is acceptable, then a large group of Jews suddenly believing the false and heretical makes it suddenly acceptable and non-heretical.
kol tuv,
josh
Do you think Natan Slifkin or David Guttman reserve the right to pick and choose which halakhah to keep?
ReplyDelete>Instead of the nebulous term rationalism, let's try this: would you agree with me that since there is a consensus in Judaism that G-d has no body a person cannot subscribe to this belief even if it makes sense to them?
I will agree that you are on much firmer ground vis a vis consensus. I don't tend to opine what people may or may not believe.
Let's not sidetrack to things such as corporealism which NOBODY accepts today and which is OUTSIDE the ikkarim. You keep avoiding my question. What if one's rebbe says that it is legitimate to accept that which is scientifically proven, and to reconcile it with Torah somehow. And let's say that there is something that is scientifically proven but there is no Godol who endorses it. What then? For example, you said that one may not accept evolution unless there is a Godol who accepts it. Why not, if one has the mesorah of which I speak?
ReplyDelete>>>i do follow the position that Ravina and Rav Ashi were sof horaah, but that one (who is of sufficient caliber) can and should disagree with Rishonim if necessary. (as did the Gra, in some matters.)
ReplyDeleteRegarding why the GR"A can disagree with a Rishon and you can't see Igros Chazon Ish, vol 1, #15 (I may be off a little, I don't have the sefer in front of me).
Of course, the Chazon Ish is a chareidi Rabbi and you can just dismiss what he says based on your own seichel, so as I wrote last week, there is no point to debate. Some of us live with the acceptance of Achronim and Rishonim as greater minds than our own and some of us do not, and that seems to end the discussion.
My only question is why even look at the Rishonim. Why pretend? Just sit down and make it whatever you like as it appeals to your seichel and be done with it.
"Some of us live with the acceptance of Achronim and Rishonim as greater minds than our own"
ReplyDeleteReally? Actually a higher IQ? Does it decline with each century? Were gentiles also formerly more intelligent?
"Regarding why the GR"A can disagree with a Rishon and you can't..."
ReplyDeletei'll check it up, bli neder, because it is a topic of interest to me. but you should know that this idea is not one that i made up or arrived at on my own, but rather one i received via what you would term masorah, as the position of some *major* poskim. (i won't name them publicly in this thread, though.)
"My only question is why even look at the Rishonim. Why pretend?"
because the Rishonim were much closer, and were also masters of rabbinic literature. and rishonim read and interpreted the gemara directly, while the habit of Acharonim was to interpret the Rishonim, rather than the gemara. Thus, there is what to learn from these brilliant tzaddikim, at the very least in terms of the possibilities of how to read the gemara; and given their caliber, also probabilities of how to read the gemara.
in terms of psak, i have it from at least one authority that the proper way a rav is to decide halacha is to read all gemaras, rishonim, acharonim, etc., and decide what you think is the correct meaning. If your understanding is at odds with the rishonim and acharonim, then you are obligated to read through all the sources again. If you are still convinced you are correct, you have an *obligation* to rule in accordance with what you think is the correct interpretation of the gemara.
of course, different people from other segments of Orthodox Judaism have different approaches to pesak. but I don't see that far a divide between halacha and hashkafa in this regard.
kt,
josh
>>>Do you think Natan Slifkin or David Guttman reserve the right to pick and choose which halakhah to keep?
ReplyDeleteLet me make sure I understand this question -- you are asking me if these individuals can choose to (for example) pasken like a Magen Avraham when the entire Torah world rejects that view in favor of a Taz (for example)? I don't want to comment on these individuals, but I would say generally that anyone who is not a talmid chacham in the sense of complete mastery of Torah who would do that is not an apikores, but is simply a fool. If someone like (for example) R' Heshel Shachter of the Rav did that, it is a different ball game.
But to go a step further, even an accomplished talmid chacham should know when his own view is within the mainstream and when it is a chiddush. For example, in the Shmiras Shabbos k'Hilchisa you have a lot of chiddushim in the footnotes that are not in the main text.
>>>I will agree that you are on much firmer ground vis a vis consensus.
The three points I stated have to do with methodology and you are speaking of conclusions. I respect your right to disagree with my conclusion about rationalism, but it sounds to me that you see no fault in the general approach while others do.
Re: commenting on others' beliefs, so long as kept to themselves, who cares. The problem is when these erroneous beliefs are spread via blogs and books, then they are given false credibility.
what, by the way, of the quote that "Atzmus Ein Sof came down in a body..." since their are holy Jews who accept this, does the consensus of non-corporealism fall by the wayside? is it now acceptable because some in the Torah world maintain it?
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
>>>Really? Actually a higher IQ?
ReplyDeletePlease see the letter of the Chazon Ish I referred Josh to, R' Tzadok haKohen in Risisei Layla #11, Ramban on Baba Basra #12, and the tshuvah of the Divrei Chaim mentioned in the other post. Nothing to do with IQ, and there is nothing to talk about unless you see those sources.
Let's not sidetrack to things such as corporealism which NOBODY accepts today and which is OUTSIDE the ikkarim. You keep avoiding my question. What if one's rebbe says that it is legitimate to accept that which is scientifically proven, and to reconcile it with Torah somehow. And let's say that there is something that is scientifically proven but there is no Godol who endorses it. What then? For example, you said that one may not accept evolution unless there is a Godol who accepts it. Why not, if one has the mesorah of which I speak?
ReplyDelete>Let me make sure I understand this question -- you are asking me if these individuals can choose to (for example) pasken like a Magen Avraham when the entire Torah world rejects that view in favor of a Taz (for example)? I don't want to comment on these individuals, but I would say generally that anyone who is not a talmid chacham in the sense of complete mastery of Torah who would do that is not an apikores, but is simply a fool. If someone like (for example) R' Heshel Shachter of the Rav did that, it is a different ball game.
ReplyDeleteNo, don't be ridiculous. I'm asking you if you think they do pick and choose halakhah. you said that so-called rationalists do, and I am asking you if actually believe that two so-called rationalists you are probably somewhat acquanited with in fact do that.
Have to run, so I'll adress the other part later
>>>What if one's rebbe says that it is legitimate to accept that which is scientifically proven, and to reconcile it with Torah somehow. And let's say that there is something that is scientifically proven but there is no Godol who endorses it. What then? For example, you said that one may not accept evolution unless there is a Godol who accepts it. Why not,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to ask me about evolution, then why beat about the bush. When you say "reconcile" it means there is a mesorah that addresses the issue, otherwise there would be nothing to reconcile, right? I already answered that this does not make one into an apikores and there are gedolim who take such an approach.
The problem is that you and S dismiss the corporeality of G-d as something no one would believe in and off subject, yet others who are defending in the name of the "rationalist" approach such views as acceptable.
I made this point earlier. There is a big difference between someone who says "I rely on Hirsch" and someone who says "I rely on my seichel". Whether it is belief in evolution or waiting only three hours between fleishig and milchig, you can be a frum Yekke and rely on a strong mesorah without having to copy the rest of klal yisrael. Someone who is not a Yekke but picks to be a Hirschian today and a Teimani tomorrow based on his own seichel is confused.
Chaim B. has mischaracterized my views!
ReplyDeletehow are you going to defend Baruch who thinks you can rely on some unnamed gedolim the Ra'avad rejects and believe G-d has a body because your seichel may say so?
That is a misrepresentation of my view. In fact, I said I wasn't clear on the issue. Let me give you the main reasons I'm not clear. Asides from the fact that I don't understand how one can pasken belief differently for different ages (when your gadol dies, you suddenly believe something different because you're no longer allowed to believe what you did five minutes ago!?), R' Hayyim Hirschensohn agreed with the Raavad.
feel bound by the decisions of achronim...you feel you can make your own way without their guidance.
As Joel Rich pointed out to me once, there's a difference between a sage on the stage and a guide by your side. And you are again mischaracterizing what I wrote. Before you wrote "poskim" and now you're writing "achronim." Big difference. For example, R' Eliezer Berkovits felt G-d has character attributes.
That's what I meant about contradicting yourself.
I still don't see where I contradicted myself.
For me, TIDE is a question of Hirsch vs. R' Baruch Ber and others, a fight in which I am a spectator.
R' Breuer is correct: that means you don't even have a fleeting insight into the life and works of R' Hirsch. Again, to me, this is the most important aspect of our conversation.
For you, even if no one in the entire Torah world held of TIDE, if you felt it was OK, then your seichel trumps the view of everyone else, from the Vilna Gaon right down the line.
It wouldn't be "my seichel" but I would be basing myself on the position of rishonim. That's if I would hold of something without the support of acharonim and to be honest with you, although I'm always hesitant about hypotheticals, I don't think I would (like my own derech is a more academic one. Big contemporary people in our own day follow this derech and have encouraged others to follow this derech -- like the talmidim of Jacob Katz z"l and Isadore Twersky z"l).
>>>I am asking you if actually believe that two so-called rationalists you are probably somewhat acquanited with in fact do that
ReplyDeleteI have met neither one of these people and don't like to comment on people personally. I have not read any of Slifkin's books or his blog and know nothing of his personality so cannot comment. David G. is a fine fellow who I don't necessarily agree with all the time, but who certainly makes me think and I trust knows how to learn.
I'm not sure I see your point in asking the question. There are fine frum people who are attracted to the Rambam's Moreh. But there are also people calling themselves "rationalists" who champion an approach to halacha that denies any authority to the mesorah whatsoever. No?
If you want to ask me about evolution, then why beat about the bush. When you say "reconcile" it means there is a mesorah that addresses the issue, otherwise there would be nothing to reconcile, right?
ReplyDeleteNo, there is no mesorah. Reconciling means that something in the Torah which nobody previously interpreted non-literally, is now being interpreted non-literally. The mesorah is only that when something appears clearly proven true, one is allowed to accept it and initiate one's own non-literal reading. What do you say about that?
There is a big difference between someone who says "I rely on Hirsch" and someone who says "I rely on my seichel".
But what if someone's mesorah is that you can rely on sechel regarding beliefs as long as it does not contradict the ikkarim?
If you want to ask me about evolution, then why beat about the bush. When you say "reconcile" it means there is a mesorah that addresses the issue, otherwise there would be nothing to reconcile, right?
ReplyDeleteNo, there is no mesorah. Reconciling means that something in the Torah which nobody previously interpreted non-literally, is now being interpreted non-literally. The mesorah is only that when something appears clearly proven true, one is allowed to accept it and initiate one's own non-literal reading. What do you say about that?
There is a big difference between someone who says "I rely on Hirsch" and someone who says "I rely on my seichel".
But what if someone's mesorah is that you can rely on sechel regarding beliefs as long as it does not contradict the ikkarim?
If you want to ask me about evolution, then why beat about the bush. When you say "reconcile" it means there is a mesorah that addresses the issue, otherwise there would be nothing to reconcile, right?
ReplyDeleteNo, there is no mesorah. Reconciling means that something in the Torah which nobody previously interpreted non-literally, is now being interpreted non-literally. The mesorah is only that when something appears clearly proven true, one is allowed to accept it and initiate one's own non-literal reading. What do you say about that?
There is a big difference between someone who says "I rely on Hirsch" and someone who says "I rely on my seichel".
But what if someone's mesorah is that you can rely on sechel regarding beliefs as long as it does not contradict the ikkarim?
"But there are also people calling themselves "rationalists" who champion an approach to halacha that denies any authority to the mesorah whatsoever. No?"
ReplyDeletebut who are these people?
you have to realize that there are big disputes abrewing, and that your posts are going to be taken in context of that. Rabbi Slifkin's blog is called Rationalist Judaism. by not specifying, you run the huge risk of conflating, or causing others to conflate, all so-called "rationalists" together.
also, in terms of Igros Chazon Ish, I don't own that particular sefer. could you scan the relevant page in so that people can read it and evaluate if the argument put forth is persuasive. until then, it is almost like an appeal to authority more than an appeal to reason. (though those forming my masorah almost certainly have seen the argument from the Chazon Ish, and simply differ.)
kt,
josh
>>>could you scan the relevant page
ReplyDeleteI don't own a copy either. Sorry!
>>>but who are these people?
The people who wrote earlier that "If you are still convinced you are correct, you have an *obligation* to rule in accordance with what you think is the correct interpretation of the gemara," even where it differs with Rishonim and Achronim. Remember who that person was? : )
BTW, is your source for this contention the R' Chaim Volozhiner on havei misavak b'afar ragleihem?
and double BTW, why is it I can be called on for appealing to authority because I cite a sefer without scanning it, but no one defending coropreality or the right to decide halacha however your seichel sees fit even feels compelled to name a single person who agrees with this other than vague references to Rabbanim who they asked but cannot name?
have to run now.
ReplyDelete"Remember who that person was?"
ReplyDeleteyes, his last name was Soloveitchik, not Waxman.
kt,
josh
Sorry, can't let that one pass. Whatever Soloveitchik you think you got this from, it was not R' Ahron Soloveitchik or his brother, as per his description in his hesped:
ReplyDeleteReb Ahron stated forcefully that the Rov did not intend to change, nor did he change, in any way from the Mesora of his Reb Moshe and Reb Chaim. That Rabbi "X" went on to say that [I do not remember the exact quote] the Rov forged new paths in Halacha, not hesitating to argue on the Shulchan Aruch. To this Reb Ahron thundered "Shomu Shomayim." If the Rov did not paskin like the Mechaber it was because he paskened like the Shach or the Taz, or like a Kabbala in the House of Brisk. The Rov was not a Maykel, but a Machmir, not forging new paths, but following and applying the ways of the Sha'agas Aryeh, Reb Refael Hamburger, the GR"A, Reb Chaim and Reb Moshe."
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v7/mj_v7i40.html#CGJ
but it is good that you clarified it was me that you intended. otherwise, you risk painting "rationalists" with too broad a brush.
ReplyDeleteif you like, i can explain to you why i do in fact maintain a faith in a masorah. it is in the general case, but in each specific case, it is a (truly competent) posek's duty to consider and rule, even if against the "masorah". and since this seems to mean a lot to you, there are some big names, much bigger than you or me, who maintain this. even if at the end of the day, they practically *found* nothing in which they felt the need to rule otherwise.
in terms of appeal to authority, saying "you cannot argue with me until you read inaccessible text X, Y, and Z" kind of approaches it. better is to summarize the arguments therein. in terms of naming authorities, perhaps email me privately...
kt,
josh
>>>But what if someone's mesorah is that you can rely on sechel regarding beliefs as long as it does not contradict the ikkarim?
ReplyDeleteSorry for not responding earlier, I know you were waiting for an answer. I hate to disappoint, but what you are asking is too broad and speculative for me to answer, and l'mai nafka minah are you asking? As I wrote in the post, you can go pretty far without technically being an apikores. I know of no one who maintains such a mesorah as you describe. See R' Ahron's quote above, and see more generally the yahrtzeit shiur in Shiurim l'Zecher Aba Mari by RYBS on the topic of mesorah.
One of the themes RYBS developed is that there are certain people who are ba'alei mesorah, leaders of the Jewish people who stand head and shoulders above others and insure the transmission of Torah. If you tell me that you rely on R' Yankel Berel of Chelm as your source of mesorah and disregard the Noda b'Yehuda (for example), you are missing the whole idea that RYBS spoke about. The Chazon Ish speaks of the same idea as well in that letter about the GR"A that I referenced earlier.
As you may or may not know, I'm actually not a huge fan of philosophy. I mockingly call it "thinking really hard," which is not a bad thing, because a lot of really great things have been accomplished by thinking really hard, but as a rule philosophy is not my thing, Jewish or otherwise. I think it's also not the vast stream of the mesorah's thing, ie, the stream which was and is opposed to philosophy, for reason you are more or less outlining here: it is too autonomous. For the Rambam a great figure to contend with was Aristotle, and he wasn't the recipient of Revelation or mesorah. He was a very smart person who thought really hard about things. Thus, for the Rambam "very smart individual who thinks really hard about things" is a bar deah to contend with. Understandably, this runs counter to the view of Judaism that you, and a lot of the Rambam's opponents, hold. In fact, I would probably agree that it basically runs counter to Rabbinic Judaism entirely.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the Rambam of course was not only a philsopher, but he also subscribed to Chazal, and had a mesorah via his father, who was apparently a great dayan, and the R"i Migash. Thus, he is not only seen as a really smart guy who thought really hard about stuff, which he was, but also as a great rabbi and pillar of halakhah and hashkfah and therefore he is not ignored, the same way that he didn't ignore Aristotle.
Fast forward 700 years. Just yesterday I posted on my blog a little excerpt from young R. Soloveitchik's doctoral dissertation on Hermann Cohen. Who was Hermann Cohen? He was a great (ie, successful) philosopher, as well as a former student of Zecharia Frankel at the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary. He was not Orthodox. I do not know if he was observant, but even if he was, it surely was not scrupulously. Why did R. Soloveitchik do his dissertation on Hermann Cohen? Was it because he had to do a diss. and so he picked a topic, but of course since Hermann Cohen's source of authority was his own smart mind, R. Soloveitchik certainly didn't consider or find what Cohen wrote serious opinions to contend with, even though as philosophy Cohen was concerned with serious and probing questions about the kinds of things which broadly speaking you would call hashkafah? If the answer is that's obviously ridiculous, rather he clearly must have felt that Cohen had serious and insightful things to say, just as the Rambam felt about Aristotle, even though these things are hashkafah itself, and even though Cohen was acting without mesorah, authority, halachic expertise or consensus, then how do you explain it? Was R. Soloveitchik merely krum or are you perhaps exaggerating the idea that us mortals, and Cohen, are not entitled to speculate or inquire about these lofty matters, and that we cannot possibly have reasonable or relevant opinions, even to the extent that we cannot even incline toward positions espoused by those who you would agree might have reasonable and relevant opinions?
And, frankly, I want to know how you can respect and even cite R. Soloveitchik and R. Kook, when the concensus is clearly "Kook, schnook" and "JB"?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
ReplyDeleteI hate to disappoint, but what you are asking is too broad and speculative for me to answer, and l'mai nafka minah are you asking? As I wrote in the post, you can go pretty far without technically being an apikores. I know of no one who maintains such a mesorah as you describe.
ReplyDeleteI know plenty of people who have such a mesorah, including myself. My own rebbe z"l saw it as a davar pashut, based on Rambam in the Moreh, that one accepts the truth from wherever it comes, and that Torah can be interpreted non-literally in such cases.
The nafkah minah is that it refutes a major point of your post. You claim that there is no mesorah on rationalism. Well, this is a major component of rationalism, and I and many others have a mesorah for it.
>>>You claim that there is no mesorah on rationalism.
ReplyDeleteAre you reading the same post I wrote? Can you please cite for me the line in my post that you got this from, because I don't see where you got this from.
>>>Understandably, this runs counter to the view of Judaism that you, and a lot of the Rambam's opponents, hold. In fact, I would probably agree that it basically runs counter to Rabbinic Judaism entirely.
ReplyDeleteI'm lost here. You are telling me that what you are suggesting is counter to the whole idea of Rabbinic Judaism. OK, so what's left to discuss? Just like it makes no sense to discuss halacha (for example) with someone who thinks they can pasken like Beis Shamai over Beis Hillel, because we are operating with different rules to the game, so too, if you toss out Rabbinic Judaism we are not playing the same game. Sorry, maybe I am not reading you correctly.
>>>when the concensus is clearly "Kook, schnook" and "JB"?
I am not aware that this is the consensus in the yeshiva world. You cannot compare negative reaction of some in the yeshiva world to RYBS to the *universal* acceptance (except by those who claim to be "rationalists" and therefore are unsure of where they stand) that G-d has no body.
RYBS dealt with Cohen's philosophy but never lost sight of his own Brisker grounding because of it. "Thinking really hard" goes on all day every day in yeshivos all over. true, for various reasons the world has grown more insular and there is a reluctance to engage outside ideas, but that is a different discussion.
What is going on today is not thinking deeply for the sake of preserving the ideals of Judaism, because you see from many of the comments here that the most basic tenets of Judaism are unclear and muddled to those doing the thinking.
When R' Baruch Ber shook when he mentioned R' Chaim's name and defended every kutzo shel yud that R' Chaim thought of, that is not a sign of intellectual cowardice or inability to think but of the recognition that the ideas of greater minds than our own need demand every jot of our attention, to the point that where we fail to understand those ideas it is more likely due to our own limitations than defect on their part. It is the cavalier willingness to dismiss the opinions of the greatest minds past and present because "I know better" which is so problematic and which your comment does not address.
...the *universal* acceptance (except by those who claim to be "rationalists" and therefore are unsure of where they stand) that G-d has no body.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of two rationalists ("those") who are unsure of whether or not G-d has a body. There may be a few who are unsure if it's unacceptable to believe. (FTR R' Slifkin is not in my "camp" of unsurity on this issue and at the end of his essay says it is not acceptable for reasons he plans to detail in the future)
"to the *universal* acceptance (except by those who claim to be "rationalists" and therefore are unsure of where they stand) that G-d has no body."
ReplyDeletei've asked this several times already, and have not received a response. there is at the very least *mild* corporealism in the Chabad camp. and they will point to a Zohar which reinforces it. I think that corporealism is heresy, but how can YOU declare it out of bounds, if this is not in fact a matter of consensus in the Torah world?
kol tuv,
josh
The last paragraph of your post says this.
ReplyDelete"Before one weighs whether the Rambam would really subscribe to all that is currently attributed to his philosophy, I think it pays to ask whether the Moreh Nevuchim has really left a lasting impression on Jewish thought, more than other thinkers who have lived since? If not, the question which begs itself is why (other than personal preference, which carries very little weight) one would suddenly look to the Rambam more than other views of Rishonim and Achronim to shape one's philosophy. Fortunately, my question was answered by Rav Soloveitchik in "The Halakhic Mind" p. 92:
"Judging Maimonides' undertaking retrospectively, one must admit that the master whose thought shaped Jewish ideology for centuries to come did not succeed in making his interpretations of the commandments prevalent in our world perspective... The reluctance on the part of the Jewish homo religiosus to accept Maimonidean rationalistic ideas is not ascribable to any agnostic tendencies, but to the incontrovertible fact that such explanations neither edify not inspire the religious consciousness. They are essentially, if not entirely, valueless for the religious interests we have most at heart.""
Then you claim this
">>>You claim that there is no mesorah on rationalism.
Are you reading the same post I wrote? Can you please cite for me the line in my post that you got this from, because I don't see where you got this from."
What were you trying to point out in this part of your post if not to say there is no mesorah for rationalism?
Either way, I agree with david Guttman and think you misunderstood what the Rav was saying, but you are clearly trying to say the mesorah for rationalism died with the Rambam, or at the very least, does not exist today.
>>>there is at the very least *mild* corporealism in the Chabad camp. and they will point to a Zohar which reinforces it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know of pretty intelligent Chabad chassidim (last name of Shochet) who will probably dismiss your interpretation of their hashkafa as sheer nonsense. Why don't you speak to a Chabad Rosh Yeshiva (which I am not) and they can explain better instead of trying to take esoteric concepts and then draw conclusions from them without firsthand knowledge? Chassidus and kabbalah very often uses imagery to express ideas that sound strange to outsiders.
ChaimB, you asserted that one may not believe in evolution unless there is a Godol who endorses it. I assume that you would say the same for innovative allegorical explanations of other parts of the Torah. What I am challenging you on is the basis for this since many people have a mesorah, beginning with R. Saadiah and the Rambam, that if something is scientifically proven true, one may interpret the Torah non-literally to suit it.
ReplyDeleteIIUC, Chaim B. has consistently emphasized the importance of what the Rav thought for his talmidim and talmidim of his talmidim. He has said he has "as much respect for those who follow the view of RYBS and Rav Kook and those who follow the R' Elyashiv or the Satmar Rav." He has quoted R' Aaron Soloveitchik about the Rav.
ReplyDeleteIn this regard, I think it is instructive to quote that respected long-time talmid muvak of the Rav, R' Walter Wurzburger. Chaim B. is free to disagree with R' Wurzburger but he doesn't have the right to unilaterally declare his understanding of the Rav treif:
"...the Rav's general approach to the nature of rabbinic authority, which in his view was limited to the domain of pesak halakha. He respected the right of individuals to form their own opinions and attitudes with respect to matters which were not subject to halakhic legislation. Because of his respect for human autonomy and individuality, he never wanted to impose his particular attitudes upon others or even offer his personal opinions as Da'at Torah. On the contrary, when I turned to him for guidance on policy matters, which at times also involved halakhic considerations, he frequently replied that I should rely upon my own judgment. Similarly, whenever the Rav expounded on his philosophy of halakha, he stressed that these were merely his personal opinions which he was prepared to share with others but which did not possess any kind of authoritative status.
This non-authoritarian approach runs counter to current trends in the Orthodox community which seeks authoritative guidance from halakhic luminaries on all policy matters. Nowadays, fundamentalism flourishes because, as Eric Fromm has pointed out, there are many who desperately seek an escape from personal responsibility. Although the Rav's approach does not satisfy the demand for dogmatic pronouncements, in the long run it holds the greatest promise for those seeking to combine commitment to halakha with a selective acceptance of the ethos of modernity, which emphasizes the preciousness of individual autonomy and freedom. According to the Rav, these 'modern' values are implicit in the biblical and rabbinic doctrine of kevod ha-beriot, the dignity due to human beings by virtue of their bearing the tzelem Elokim.
One might argue that such a stance, far from constituting a concession to modernity, represents a reaffirmation of classical teachings of Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism, which frequently have been neglected. One therefore might conclude that Orthodoxy would be spiritually far healthier if the Rav would be accepted as a role model not merely by 'Modern Orthodoxy' but rather by all halakhically committed Jews of the modern era."
>>>What I am challenging you on is the basis for this since many people have a mesorah, beginning with R. Saadiah and the Rambam, that if something is scientifically proven true, one may interpret the Torah non-literally to suit it.
ReplyDeleteAre you asking me a general question or specifically about evolution? (I think I answered you about that above).
Before I answer you, let's make sure we agree on basics. When you say you have a mesorah from the Rambam, how is that different than saying there is a mesorah from the Rambam that psik reisha d'lo neicha leih is permissable (which may or may not be the Rambam's view, ain kan mekomo, let's just use it as an example)? Don't you think before you run around paskening on psik reisha shaylos you would want to maybe check what the other Rishonim held, what the Shulchan Aruch held, which view has garnered more support in Achronim and why? Or did Judaism stop in the 14th century and you can just pick and choose from a grab bag of views irrespective of what everyone who lived afterwards holds?
Second question: if you evaluate later views, do you think A Noda b'Yehudah carries more weight than what Rabbi Yankel Berel of Chelm held, or not?
I asked you these earlier and have answered all your questions, but I don't recall you responding to a single question of mine, so maybe I'll wait to hear what you say here before we get to the next step.
Sorry, that comment was from me using my wife Ariella's PC. Anyway, you may not have been reading this blog long enough, but I myself have quoted Achronim in support of the mesorah which you cite and think it is the best approach to resolve questions!
ReplyDeletehttp://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/06/nirin-divreihem-mdivreinu-did-chazal.html
http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/06/dealing-with-conflicts-between-science.html
Some of the chevra in the comments take issue with this approach, which has support from not only the Rambam, but mystics like GR"A and Ramchal as well. The amazing thing is that anyone would challenge such a view.
Instead of taking the approach you suggest and I think makes sense they instead prefer to say Chazal were speaking literally and just did not know what they were talking about. So Shlomo, perhaps you agree with me????
>I'm lost here. You are telling me that what you are suggesting is counter to the whole idea of Rabbinic Judaism. OK
ReplyDeleteIt's my opinion, you don't have to agree with me. I may opine that the Rambam's worldview essentially ran counter to Rabbinic Judaism, but he's still the Rambam. Furthermore, unless you agree with me, what difference does my opinion make?
>I am not aware that this is the consensus in the yeshiva world. You cannot compare negative reaction of some in the yeshiva world to RYBS to the *universal* acceptance
Of course it is. "Kook schnook" and "JB" are not views held by "some" in the yeshiva world. Perhaps your tolerant view is held by "some," but the consensus is the other way.
By the way, I've noticed a tendency on your part to ignore parts of replies that perhaps you don't initially have a response to, until you're pressed (not to say that I am not myself guilty of this). What about Rav Kook? Even if I would grant the point about R. Soloveitchik, which I will not, what can you say about Rav Kook and the consensus about him? Who gave you the broad shoulders to decide on your own to respect him, or that one may legitimately do so? What about the mesorah derived at through universal consensus?
As for R. Soloveitchik, in reality there is a tiny olam of people who affiliate yeshivish (but not gedolim!) who do try to respect him, and people like his nephew R. Meiselman who even revere him. But in order to do this they see him as just another Brisker talmid chochom or the "Ravad of Boston" but certainly not as the man he was. It is absolutely true that he was a Brisker, and that was his style of talmud torah, but by the same token all those views and writings and approaches which run contrary in every way to the vast consensus of the yeshiva world, are also present within him. They can be found in his philosophical writings, in the book of letters and essays published by Helfgot, and in the newly released loshon hora book. IIRC R. Meiselman wrote in Tradition that the only substantial difference between R. Soloveitchik and R. Aharon Kotler was that the former was in RIETS and the latter in Lakewood. That is ridiculous, and I would say the consensus in the yeshiva world then as well as now recognizes that.
Okay, but you profess being unaware that it's the consensus, so we're going to just say we're unaware of the consenses. You're unaware of this consensus, and I am unaware of the other hashkafic consenses you assure me that there are.
>the *universal* acceptance (except by those who claim to be "rationalists"and therefore are unsure of where they stand) that G-d has no body.
I have no idea who and what you are referring to. I would argue that almost by definition a rationalist, with or without scare-quotes around it, most certainly knows exactly where they stand on whether or not God is corporeal in any way, and that's against it.
>RYBS dealt with Cohen's philosophy but never lost sight of his own Brisker grounding because of it.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't that be my talking point?
But seriously, it's almost like you didn't read what I wrote. Who the heck gave that krum Cohen guy to write to speculate philosophically about the deepest issues of hashkafah? Did he quake when at the mention of R. Chaim Brisker? And who gave that pagan Aristotle the right to speculate philosophically? Worse, why is the Rambam "dealing" with him and appearing to take him seriously, no less?
The point is that "hashkafah" is in fact not only the purview of certain elite Talmudists and halakhists, and the rest of us ants are being chutzpadik for not merely accepting the consensus of the elites (assuming there's even a consensus). If Cohen could speculate about hashkafah, why can't I even incline toward a hashkafic approach which I find compelling? Neither the Rambam nor R. Soloveitchik ever dreamed that Aristotle and Hermann Cohen (or Kant, etc.) are unqualified gnats.
The point is not to say that I am a great philosopher like Hermann Cohen, but that there is recognition of the value of human reason and even in a person with a total ignorance or indifference to halacha and yet they still have what to say and think about the most vital issues of the spirit. You weren't mekubal this from your rabbeim? Gesunteheit, don't employ your reason, incline toward views or form opinions. :)
>"Thinking really hard" goes on all day every day in yeshivos all over. true, for various reasons the world has grown more insular and there is a reluctance to engage outside ideas, but that is a different discussion.
That has nothing to do with R. Soloveitchik and Cohen.
Besides, who is in a yeshiva? You? Me? We're men, adults, not youths in a yeshiva. Maybe it's not for inexperienced kids, I would grant that.
>>>If Cohen could speculate about hashkafah, why can't I even incline toward a hashkafic approach which I find compelling?
ReplyDeleteBut as you wrote, Cohen was not Orthodox. He did not need to feel his conclusions constrained by fidelity to mesorah or halacha. We do. Therefore I don't see your point. Where one's good thinking flies in the face of conclusions that have been reached by greater minds than ours, a little humility and questioning of assumptions is in order. You disagree?
If human reason is paramount, then why would you arbitrarily draw the line at the ikakrim or some other point? Why not just accept whatever the mind dictates and that's it? I think even you accept limits, and disagree with me only as to where to draw the line, but not on the three basic points I set out in my post. Perhaps I misunderstand you, so please point to which assumption 1, 2, or 3 of mine you take issue with.
>>>What about Rav Kook?
ReplyDeleteI try my best to answer everything, but there is only so much time I have!
As I wrote earlier, chareidi=a political term. I am speaking of beni Torah in general, of which there are thousands in the dati leumi camp. Are there thousands of bnei Torah who think G-d as a body? No. Please see the earlier comments. Baruch seems to have major issues with my post and he is unsure of thinking G-d has a body makes one an apikores. Josh thinks you can pasken shaylos as you see fit even if Rishonim and Achronim argue so long as you are confident you are right, something I think no major posek in YU or out agrees with.
Instead of trying to read every post of mine as an attack on Slifkin, why not take what I say at face value -- an attack on the distortions of hashkafa like these. If these distortions are being made by people calling themselves "rationalists", how would you like me to respond?
>But as you wrote, Cohen was not Orthodox. He did not need to feel his conclusions constrained by fidelity to mesorah or halacha. We do. Therefore I don't see your point. Where one's good thinking flies in the face of conclusions that have been reached by greater minds than ours, a little humility and questioning of assumptions is in order. You disagree?
ReplyDeleteYou're basically saying that Orthodox Jews are the only subset of the world's population that can't, shouldn't, oughtn't think about hashkafah apart for a few dozen Orthodox Jews, and the rest will accept and agree to whatever consensus emerges from these few dozen Orthodox Jews? That is how we are to relate to matters of the spirit?
Hermann Cohen wasn't Orthodox, but he should have been, right? I don't get it. Are you suggesting that being Orthodox, or really just a Jew doing the right thing and living the right way, is conditional on not having the autonomy to incline toward certain views, let alone freshly examining them?
>Where one's good thinking flies in the face of conclusions that have been reached by greater minds than ours, a little humility and questioning of assumptions is in order. You disagree?
No.
>If human reason is paramount, then why would you arbitrarily draw the line at the ikakrim or some other point? Why not just accept whatever the mind dictates and that's it? I think even you accept limits, and disagree with me only as to where to draw the line, but not on the three basic points I set out in my post. Perhaps I misunderstand you, so please point to which assumption 1, 2, or 3 of mine you take issue with.
Human reason is not paramount, but it's not lacking entirely in value, to be mistrusted totally or a beast that must be kept in a cage.
"Why don't you speak to a Chabad Rosh Yeshiva (which I am not) and they can explain better"
ReplyDeleteok, so that is your answer; you don't accept that their views are heresy.
i'm sure they can "explain" it wonderfully. and if you speak to a priest, there are those who will explain and rationalize the Trinity and how it is not really polytheistic. you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
but did Rav Shach subscribe to your views on the definition of heresy, as being based on consensus rather than Truth? whether or not Chabad beliefs are heresy, they are based on earlier Chabad and then Chassidic and then kabbalistic beliefs, through their own masorah, and with a consensus within their own Torah-abiding community. how could Rav Shach have considered them heretics?
my concern here, btw, is not to attack Chabad, but to put your grand theory and definition of kefirah against a reductio ad absurdum.
Sabbateans, many of whom were prominent Rabbonim, and *many* of them, believed Shabtai Tzvi to be the same as one of the Sefirot, IIRC Tiferes. And others felt that this was complete and utter heresy. if this was a matter of dispute in the Torah-abiding community, though others felt is to be wrong, was it heretical? If you lived then, would you consider Sabbatean kabbalah to be acceptable but rationalism in terms of hashkafa outside the pale? What about those in the next generation, who received their position via a masorah? If so, what would you say to all those rabbonim who *did* deem it heresy?
kol tuv,
josh
"Josh thinks you can pasken shaylos as you see fit"
ReplyDeleteno, i think a qualified posek can pasken shaylos as he sees fit. those who are qualified to such a degree may be extremely few in number. it is not necessarily a matter of the conclusion, but the process and system by which one arrives at the conclusion. mine is a Judaism of Truth, while yours is a Judaism of consensus.
"something I think no major posek in YU or out agrees with"
this is debatable. though you say that it is something you think.
who said this? this quote puts consensus / masorah up against truth:
"There are individuals who consider themselves Orthodox who believe that at one time the Jewish people did have a Divine Torah, but the amoraim misunderstood the tannaim, the rishonim misunderstood the Talmud, and the achronim misunderstood the rishonim. “But don’t get me wrong,” they would say “– I’m Orthodox! And therefore I feel that the laws of the Shulchan Aruch are all binding, even though I think everything is in error.” This is not the Orthodox position. If one is really convinced that a certain psak is really in error, he is not permitted to follow it."
kol tuv,
josh
"If these distortions are being made by people calling themselves "rationalists", how would you like me to respond?"
ReplyDeletei was maintaining these beliefs (though i don't think you fully understand my position) well before i was calling myself a rationalist. if this is meant as an attack on one particular person's positions -- namely me, Josh Waxman -- then why not respond to "Josh"? Or to "parshabloggers"? Or to "Jews"? I call myself a Jew as well, you know. ;)
kt,
josh
Before I answer you, let's make sure we agree on basics. When you say you have a mesorah from the Rambam, how is that different than saying there is a mesorah from the Rambam that psik reisha d'lo neicha leih is permissable (which may or may not be the Rambam's view, ain kan mekomo, let's just use it as an example)?
ReplyDeleteTwo Big Differences.
1) You are talking about halachah, I am talking about hashkafah.
2) I am not talking about something that stopped with the Rambam, but rather about something that I heard from my rebbe, and that merely originated with the Rambam.
Second question: if you evaluate later views, do you think A Noda b'Yehudah carries more weight than what Rabbi Yankel Berel of Chelm held, or not?
It doesn't for the talmid of Rabbi Yankel Berel of Chelm. Just like today, you don't need to follow the Gedolim on a halachic or hashkafic matter if your own Rav disagrees.
Anyway, you may not have been reading this blog long enough, but I myself have quoted Achronim in support of the mesorah which you cite and think it is the best approach to resolve questions!
No, you used it for Chazal. I am talking about CHUMASH. Something in the Chumash that has historically been taken literally, e.g. the nature of the Flood, and I want to take it non-literally, based on my rebbe giving me a mesorah of a general approach that if something is scientifically proven, I can innovate a non-literal interpretation of the CHumash. What do you make of that mesorah?
The application of my (rebbe's) approach to Chazal would be as follows. If something seems scientifically proven, and Chazal say the opposite, and the general understanding of Chazal in the Rishonim is that they were speaking literally, I can say that Chazal were wrong, even though I don't have a source for saying it with that specific statement.
So, is that kind of mesorah acceptable to you?
I am with R. Josh Waxman.
ReplyDeleteRe psak, the way I understand it there is a difference between paskening for others and personal behavior. Until one learns a sugya thoroughly one should follow the psak that one grew up with. Once one knows a sugya, if it is not a matter that was clearly decided in the Gemara, one follows the shikul hada'as developed in learning. We know that it is a matter decided in Gemara if it is listed stam in rambam who tells us when it is not dina degmara. though there are arguments among Rishonim against rambam's decision in the geamara they are relatively far and few apart.
Paskening for others however one must be a gadol betorah and know Kol Hatorah Kula or refer to someone of that stature. One may not pasken for others from any poskim sefer alone (including Mishna Berurah).
That is with halacha. With hashkafa it depends what the subject is. Incorporeality according to rambam, is a red line. ra'avad agrees though the sanction for crossing it to him is less. The other Ikarim have a lot of leeway for interpretation. For example Rambam's nevuah, Torah min Hashamayim are different than the understanding of other Rishonim such as R. Yehuda Halevi, Ramban et al. rambam holds that even creation yesh mea'yin is not accepted by all the tanaim e.g. Rabbi Eliezer Hagadol,R. Yehuda ben Rav Simon and rav Avehu.
One thing is certain the sechel trumps everything and if one is honest, uses the sources carefully, one cannot help to come to their own understanding which may change as learning develops the person.
Great debate and some good points on this thread.
Re: the flood -- the Rishonim already ask this kashe (the details do not fit the reality -- you can't fit a million animals in an ark) and answer it (see Ramban) without resorting to the teirutz that it is allegorical. Please explain why you don't like the answer of the Rishonim first before you invent your own answer.
ReplyDeleteJust because an approach is correct doesn't mean you wantonly apply it everywhere without weighing if there is a better answer. Same in lomdus -- the gemara itself (sorry, don't recall source) has a line "mipnei she'nidmeh na'aseh ma'aseh?", i.e. just because it is a good sevara doesn't mean we but into it lma'aseh. Here it is not a ma'aseh question, but it is a question of the best approach to the text.
>>>Human reason is not paramount, but it's not lacking entirely in value, to be mistrusted totally or a beast that must be kept in a cage.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you.
>>>You're basically saying that Orthodox Jews are the only subset of the world's population that can't, shouldn't, oughtn't think about hashkafah apart for a few dozen Orthodox Jews, and the rest will accept and agree to whatever consensus emerges from these few dozen Orthodox Jews?
Not at all. I am saying that one must be aware of the limitations of one's own thinking and ability and defer to the expertise of these "few dozen" Orthodox Jews in matters of faith and halacha where they reach conclusions that differ widely from one's own. We are not discussing the value of autonomous thought in general; we are discussing the value of autonomous interpretation of Judaism which flies in the face of widely held tradition.
You have not explained why it is conscionable to demand the sacrifice of spirit and autonomy of thought that may motivate an atheist to deny belief entirely or the Jew for Jesus to affirm a false faith or a Reform Jew from thinking of the Torah in a way completely foreign to us.
>>>This non-authoritarian approach runs counter to current trends in the Orthodox community which seeks authoritative guidance from halakhic luminaries on all policy matters.
ReplyDeleteWho is talking about policy matters? Is whether G-d had a body or whether an Ashkenzi Jew can wake up one morning and adopt Teimani minhagim a matter of public policy?
What you wrote before:
ReplyDelete>>>If your understanding is at odds with the rishonim and acharonim, then you are obligated to read through all the sources again. If you are still convinced you are correct, you have an *obligation* to rule in accordance with what you think is the correct interpretation of the gemara.
What you wrote now:
>>>no, i think a qualified posek can pasken shaylos as he sees fit. those who are qualified to such a degree may be extremely few in number.
Which is it? If I read a gemara (me, myself, I) and decide that I am convinced that the Rambam, the Beis Yosef, the Shach, Taz, and R' Akiva Eiger all misread it and only I arrived at the correct conclusion, and I repeat the process 50 times and am still convinced I am right, do I follow what I feel to be the truth (and I am far from an expert posek) or do I defer to experts greater than myself even if I don't understand how they reached their conclusion and think my approach more truthful?
Josh, why do you need to dig up a quote from R' Shachter for what is an open Mishna in Horiyot that says if you really think B"D is wrong you cannot follow them. The problem is 1) this applies only to a bar plugta of beis din, i.e. one of the dayanim, and 2) at least according to Ramban, once Beis Din conclusively tells him he is wrong he must defer to their authority. Which is why R' Shachter has also written:
ReplyDelete"Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old halachic position, accepted and observed universally by all of Klal Yisroel, does not lend itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages, chiddush, but not for shinui (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According to Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact that it was universally accepted by all of Klal Yisroel....Rav Moshe in his essay on the topic of the kohanim attending medical school writes that the fact that some "scholar," not particularly known for his strength in psak, published a paper in which he was prepared to permit a centuries-honored prohibition universally accepted by Klal Yisroel, would itself seem to indicate that the author of the paper probably belonged to that group of individuals who are gaas libam b'hora'ah (arrogantly enjoy deciding questions of Jewish law)."
>Josh, why do you need to dig up a quote from R' Shachter for what is an open Mishna in Horiyot that says if you really think B"D is wrong you cannot follow them. The problem is 1) this applies only to a bar plugta of beis din, i.e. one of the dayanim, and 2) at least according to Ramban, once Beis Din conclusively tells him he is wrong he must defer to their authority.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear from the quote that R. Schachter is not talking about a member of the bes din, and also that "he is not permitted to follow it," as opposed to "he must defer to their authority," as per the Ramban. Totally separate cases.
However, it is also clear from context that he is actually talking about Talmud critics like Halivni, and he is really attacking them because of their methodology. He is stating his view that "If one is really convinced that a certain psak is really in error, he is not permitted to follow it," and this is supposed to be a trap for Talmud critics et al. I don't think he's exactly telling people to not follow the Shulchan Aruch if they really think the SA got it wrong as much as he's telling them that at the end of the day it is intellectually dishonest to have the attitude that I'll listen to the Shulchan Aruch, or the Talmud, and be a practicing Orthodox Jew, but in reality I think the SA got it wrong, or the Gemara misinsterpreted a Mishnah, etc.
Re: the flood -- the Rishonim already ask this kashe (the details do not fit the reality -- you can't fit a million animals in an ark) and answer it (see Ramban) without resorting to the teirutz that it is allegorical. Please explain why you don't like the answer of the Rishonim first before you invent your own answer.
ReplyDeleteThe details are not important, I was just tossing out an example. Let's say, for whatever reason, the answer of the Rishonim seems problematic, and I have this mesorah from my rebbe. Is there any reason why I cannot employ it?
"It's clear from the quote that R. Schachter is not talking about a member of the bes din"
ReplyDeleteindeed. though i disagree with chaim b. as to the true meaning in Horayot, in all places this idea comes up.
"However, it is also clear from context that he is actually talking about Talmud critics like Halivni..."
yes, i agree with this also. though i was using it to make the theoretical point. this theoretical point comes across in other things he has said.
the footnote in that TorahWeb article, which i didn't cite, but which is implicit throughout, is key:
"It goes without saying that when evaluating a psak, one must factor in any discrepancy between his own knowledge and qualifications vs. those of the posek espousing the psak in question, and what such a discrepancy may indicate regarding which person is the one who is in error."
"Which is it? If I read a gemara (me, myself, I)"
with all due respect, i do not think that you, yourself, you, do have the requisite abilities to pasken in this way and operate at this level. one needs to be *extremely* smart *extremely* and knowledgeable, in most instances an extreme gamir veSavir. rav moshe feinstein, rav elyashiv, rav schachter, rav kanievsky, etc. of course, many such people would not be inclined to employ this idea; and even if they did, in either 99.9999% or 100% of the cases they would agree with the Rishonim. And in the general case we have faith that the Masorah we have is correct, so this makes sense and works out quite nicely. But the point is that in theory, or perhaps in the unique case which is 1 out of a million, they could do it; which then means that Truth prevails, rather than consensus. a consensus which is false, where it can be determined to be false, prevails.
in addition to this, i think that in certain cases it can be determined that Rishonim were incorrect even by certain non-experts. this is not to toot our own horn, but rather to say that we are standing on the shoulders of giants. certain methodologies, or else realia, make facts available to us that in certain cases were not available to them. for example, rabbi slifkin has an article about shiurim, and olives, and documents a difference between Ashkenaz and Sefarad, and about how in certain areas they had to resort to (over-) estimating based on interpretation of sources just how big an olive was, because they simply did not have olives available to them. (though i don't think he then applies this to practical halacha, for other reasons.) or being able to actually examine an elephant, where Tosafot did not have elephants available in medieval France. or certain things about establishing the true girsaot of certain gemaras, which i won't get into here.
the first instruction i cited, which seems to you to contradict the latter quote, was told to someone who was to be a posek of the highest caliber.
(someone of lower caliber should be responsible enough to think that perhaps he is wrong, and seriously consider that. and perhaps argue it out with others of higher levels. and i am not entirely sure what should be the end result. a good many people think more highly of themselves than they should, and don't realize that.)
kol tuv,
josh
oops. i should have written
ReplyDelete"a consensus which is false, where it can be determined to be false, does not prevail."
>>>Let's say, for whatever reason, the answer of the Rishonim seems problematic, and I have this mesorah from my rebbe. Is there any reason why I cannot employ it?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the methodology. I practice, finding an example where it would make sense to apply it would be a major obstacle.
>>>one needs to be *extremely* smart *extremely* and knowledgeable, in most instances an extreme gamir veSavir.
ReplyDeleteSo you have been arguing this whole time because you don't think that I respect R' Chaim Kanievsky's right to disagree with the Chazon Ish, for example?
You haven't explained *why* if I feel I am correct I defer to giants? You simply declare it as a fact, but what is the logic behind your rule? Why should I abandon truth just because I am a "mere mortal", as S put it?
The obvious answer: the fact that a consensus of experts disagree with my little mind is evidence that I am on the wrong track.
You create a false dichotomy between consensus and truth. The consensus of experts contrary to my own is itself a sign that my conclusion, though it may ring true to me, ultimately is false.
Sure, you can overturn experts opinions if you have hard facts to the contrary. But those cases are few and rare. Most of the time issues revolve around the interpretation of facts (ask any lawyer) and deference should be shown to the opinions of greater minds than our own.
"So you have been arguing this whole time because you don't think that I respect R' Chaim Kanievsky's right to disagree with the Chazon Ish, for example?"
ReplyDeleteor the Rambam and rest of the Rishonim and Acharonim.
"You haven't explained *why* if I feel I am correct I defer to giants?"
you don't. you rely on your sechel. but your sechel should tell you that you are likely on the wrong track -- just as you write. what is key is the process by which we get to approximately the same place.
also:
"So you have been arguing this whole time because"
no, this is one small part of the overall discussion. this is just the question of whether Truth + Sechel, or Consensus and Piety, get you there, in terms of whether a late Acharon can argue on all the Geonim, Rishonim, and early Acharonim. there are other issues, such as whether poskim can and choose among existing positions of rishonim and acharonim based on what seems the most true, which i would posit happens quite often, and is legitimate. and there is the question whether, *when learning Torah* rather than paskening, even a non-posek can adopt a position of the Taz over the Shach when learning Shulchan Aruch, or of Ibn Ezra over Rashi when learning Torah, as more convincing and true, or whether he is not permitted to *think* so, because of a consensus. And whether even if not, such a consensus can apply to philosophical positions and questions of hashkafa, when the Rambam says that consensus does not. and even if "we" don't "pasken" like that Rambam because of consensus, whether this is begging the question.
there are also some rather important repercussions in terms of pesak where you and i might differ. for example, in Rabbi Frimer's review of Dr. Sperber's book, he argued that Dr. Sperber might be entirely correct in terms of the meaning of a phrase, but that it is irrelevant because he cannot cite any rishonim who agree with him. so he might entirely agree that Sperber's position is truth, but that does not matter from a halachic perspective. i would disagree, and say that this matter should be brought to the attention of Gedolim who are able to weigh such matters, who would decide whether what Dr. Sperber said was convincing and was truth, and if so, pesak should follow him. what would you say? does process trump truth?
elsewhere -- though perhaps you were saying this for rhetorical purposes -- you argued for a distinction between looking at sources from the perspective of a historian or halachicist, and that Brisker chakirahs aren't true in terms of reflecting Rambam's intent, but that that doesn't matter. would you still say this.
there is more to write, but no time.
have a great shabbos,
josh
oops: i think both of them are Rabbi Doctors.
ReplyDelete>>>but that it is irrelevant because he cannot cite any rishonim who agree with him.
ReplyDeleteSee the Chazon Ish in the Igros I referred to earlier who adopts this view, which is also consistent with what I have written earlier regarding the distinction between historical truth and halacha.
The C.I. l'shitaso opts for preserving the girsa of seforim adopted by mesorah even if demonstrably incorrect.
I believe your rebbe, R' Shachter, would disagree with your attempts to circumscribe mesorah to the narrow area of halacha alone:
"Regarding Torah Shebeal Peh, the key word is “mesorah.” The attitudes and the style of thinking must be transmitted from rebbe to talmid. The opening mishna in Avos tells us that Moshe received the Torah from G-d at Mt. Sinai, and transmitted it (messara) to Joshua; and each succeeding generation transmitted the Torah Shebeal Peh to the next generation. There can not be Torah Shebeal Peh without “ mesorah.” One lacking such a mesorah can not sit down with a sefer of mishnayos or gemorrah and come up with some new ideas and claim that this is in the spirit of the Torah Shebeal Peh. Strictly speaking, there is no text to Torah Shebeal Peh. It is a system of ideas and attitudes giving an approach which was intended to be transmitted orally – along with the full depth and flavor of meaning and understanding of those attitudes and ideas."
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/moadim/rsch_yk.html
Attitudes, ideas, style of thinking -- you would think this comes from Shurei Da'as or someplace like that. I once heard R' Parnes speak about the need to preserve not just the content of what is learned but the tzurah as well. The goal of mesorah is not to create halachic technocrats faithful to the letter of the law, but to preserve the values and ideals of Torah, the meta-halachic formula without which the whole system is worthless.
>>>And whether even if not, such a consensus can apply to philosophical positions and questions of hashkafa, when the Rambam says that consensus does not.
ReplyDeleteOn the relationship between hashkafa and halacha, R' Meir Twersky's article is a nice read. He writes (http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rtwe_wtg.html) that the Rav's opposition of women's prayer groups was rooted in "halakhic values, not halakhic details."
"Mesora encompasses not only analytic novella, abstract theories, halakhic formulae and logical concepts . . . but also ontological patterns, emotions and reactions, a certain existential rhythm and experiential continuity."
To reiterate what I have written in the past, this is not a chareidi viewpoint, but one rooted in Torah and shared in YU as well. To say that one should defer to a consensus of gedolim in matters of halacha but not take heed to what they say in matters of spirit is to bifurcate two parts of a whole (see R' Ahron's into to "Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind").
In yeshivos they say that where Tosfos quotes a sevara with no ra'aya that is even stronger than where they do bring a ra'aya because it means the conclusions stems not from a particular diyuk or sugya but from the totality of their Torah personality.
"your attempts to circumscribe mesorah to the narrow area of halacha alone"
ReplyDeletei don't think you understood entirely what i was saying before; and i don't think you are understanding entirely what i am saying now. i think i am talking past you. and it is easy to cut and paste quotes from people and misapply them way past the way they were intended, as i feel you have done (and pointed out as such) in the past. which might be the point of text vs. orality.
"See the Chazon Ish in the Igros I referred to..."
i can't.
"The C.I. l'shitaso opts for preserving the girsa of seforim adopted by mesorah even if demonstrably incorrect."
this is not entirely true, as far as I understand correctly. See Rabbi Dr. Leiman's article in Tradition, from the Winter of 1981.
http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104250
kt,
josh
"On the relationship between hashkafa and halacha, R' Meir Twersky's article"
ReplyDeletei haven't read that article yet, but there is a difference between hashkafa of pesak, and hashkafa guiding pesak, on the one hand, and hashkafa in terms of what one is allowed to THINK and BELEIVE.
kol tuv,
josh
and here, btw, is another quote from rav schachter about the permissibility -- nay, the obligation, to utilize one's sechel, in specific instances:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.torahweb.org/torah/2007/parsha/rsch_korach.html
"I recently met a young talmid chochom who insisted that a certain halacha in Shulchan Aruch must be understood literally, as applying in all cases, even when it made no sense. I argued that it was self understood that one use his common sense, and only apply the halacha when it indeed did make sense. (I later checked the Iggros Moshe of Rav Moshe Feinstein and he wrote exactly the same in that particular instance). This young talmid chochom told me, no, we may not use common sense at all, and even though the halacha – as he misunderstood it – made no sense, he has “emunas chachomim.” I told him that this was a Christian concept (the principle of the infallibility of the posek). Our Torah speaks of the theoretical possibility of a par he’elem davar shel tzibbur, a korban brought in a situation where all seventy one members of the Sanhedrin paskened wrong. The torah tells us that on one occasion Moshe Rabbeinu was about to issue an incorrect psak, until he listened to his brother Aharon and corrected his position.
In our religion, are we not permitted, or better yet – obligated, to ask questions when we come across a halacha that makes no sense? Isn’t that what “lernin” is all about: to make sense out of the halacha! Our Torah is a Toras emes: it corresponds to reality, and does not contradict it!"
of course, one or two quotes do not do justice, or provide the full nuance, of the position.
shabbat shalom,
josh
Read the gemorah in pesachim, again, and like I said before, you, Chaim B, can not poskin according to the gemorah. This is especially true because I think you missed the whole point here. Try reading the next part of the gemorah and checking the tosfos on the next page. Also, take a little looksies at the Shulchan Orech where he gives his two cents.
ReplyDeleteIf you read my post again on traditional Judaism, the gemorah is saying exactly what I said. However, not sure where it says if I want to join the taymani community I can;t do that. In fact, the Shulchan orech even says that if I go to another city, then I have an obligation to change my minahgim to fit those of that new city! In this day and age we would be talking about communities that one chooses to be a part of. If I go to sqver then i have to be part of that. If I choose to go to YU then I should be part of that. If I live in Bnei Brak then I have to follow those customs. However, this gemorah says nothing about how to think and what to believe on evolution or so on. Rather it is talking about practical halacha not philosophy.
So if Rabbi Hirsch's philosophy on the makkos makes more sense than the Gra's then I can believe Rabbi Hirsch's. However, if I live in a community where the Gra is followed I can not poskin like Rav Hirsch. Do you understand the difference here?
I think the important point here is that the Gemorah that you are quoting for how to think, anti-rationalism, is not actually talking about that! Also, you can clearly swtich communities according to this gemorah as understood by the shulchan orech.
However, neither of us are dayanim so we should probably consult with our local orthodox rabbis to see what halacha lemaaseh is.
I will tell you this though. When I was in YU I asked Rabbi Mayer Twersky about Evolution. He said that one can believe in it or not, as long as you believe that G-D was the one guiding it it is fine to believe in evolution. However, it has no effect on our connection to Hashem, whatever happened happened.
If you think Rationalism is someone paskening for themselves based on how they view the Gemorah, that is wrong. Unless it is someone like Rav Moshe feinstein and even then he would rarely, if ever, paskin based solely on a gemorah. That would be ridiculous. However, rationalism is the belief that logic can be used to view the world in how to understand what happened in the Torah and all events, past and present.
ReplyDeleteA rationalist will believe that a Gadol is wrong when he says that Jews and Non-Jews have different amounts of teeth, or when a gadol says the world is flat, a non-rationalist will not, he, or she, will believe the gadol meant something deeper, or we did not understand their words.
A rationalist will believe that the Zohar was actually written by Moshe delione instead of Rabbi shimon bar yochai,a non-rationalist will not. That is what the major difference is. Not practical halacha, but the mindset and the view of the world.
The Rambam viewed the world as a place where he could understand everything except the essence of G-D. The Maharal viewed the world as a big mystery where, although we may think we can understand, everything is really the will of G-D and not fully comprehesible to a mere man.
The difference between a rationalist and a non-rationalist is simple: Rationalists follow halacha, but think about how the Torah and reason go together whereas a non-rationalist just follows what their Rav says without thinking about how it contradicts reason.
If you will tell me this is not true then I will ask you, How can you argue with Rav Kanievsky or the shvus yaakov that is quoted over at parsha.blogspot.com where he clearly says the earth is flat. Who are you to argue with them? This is according to your non-rationalist views.
Rationalists believe that the Rabonim's views on halacha are not to be overlooked, but their views on the natural world are either true or false. If they are true, then good, but if they are false then we don't listen to them.
The best example is when the Gemorah and Rishonim talk about blood letting. We know this is bad for health in most situations. However, the Rabbis said you should get your blood let at least once a month if not more. Are you going to follow that? If not, why not? How can they be wrong?
>Let's say, for whatever reason, the answer of the Rishonim seems problematic, and I have this mesorah from my rebbe. Is there any reason why I cannot employ it?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the methodology.
Good, so I take it that you retract what you said about how a person is only allowed to accept evolution if there's a Godol (TM) who okays it.