Wednesday, August 19, 2009

the danger of ta'aroves

I don't know why, but I just have not felt in the mood to write lately. Sometimes it seems that sharing divrei Torah on a forum such as a blog is a bracha l'vatala. The anti-torah material on the internet so greatly outnumbers the torah sites that rather than encourage people to read divrei torah on the 'net it is probably better to encourage people to just stop reading any jewish sites to avoid the pitfalls. I remember someone once telling me that his mashgiach told him that if he goes to college, he should go to someplace like Notre Dame. Can you imagine walking around on a campus filled with crosses? Why would a Jew put himself in such an environment? The answer is that the odds of a ben yeshiva falling prey to what he recognizes as treif are slim (which is not to say there is no danger at all!) But when you walk around on a campus filled with yalmukas, where there may even be a beis medrash, and amidst all that there is a "Tanach" lecture by someone who happens to deny the concept of Torah min hashamayim as most of klal yisrael understands it, then the danger is far greater. The ta'aroves of tov v'ra is a much harder challenge to respond to than the challenge of ra in its pure form. "Tocho achal v'klipaso zarak" demands both the knowledge to discriminate between the two and vigilance to engage in a constant war of being boreir.

The Tiferes Shlomo gives a mashal to a king who is locked away in a dungeon somewhere, his palace taken over by despots, his throne in danger of being lost. The king's son manages to sneak into the dungeon to meet his father. So what does the son talk about -- does he have a plan to escape, does he share his father's sorrow and worry, does he offer hope and pledge to get his father out? No, he starts telling over to his father a teirutz to a difficult Rambam!

The Tiferes Shlomo was not talking about the internet, but I'll steal his mashal anyway. You have hundreds of "jewish" sites written by even "orthodox" (or maybe "orthoprax") people which create a ta'aroves and destroy the palace of the king. While the king sits languishing in prison we should sit here writing up answers to difficult Rambams?!

My wife pointed out to me that a real Litvak would not be swayed by this Tiferes Shlomo. Yes, we should davka be saying over difficult Rambams, because that gufa is what strengthens the king and will lead to his release. Point granted with respect to the king, but what of the citizens of the empire who are swayed by the leaders of the coup and lost to their false propaganda?

Some will argue that we should seize the opportunity to engage in debate and prove the truth of our perspective. The Alter of Navardohk has a brilliant insight that shows why such an approach is doomed to failure. Hashem appeared to Avimelech and told him that he will die for taking Sarah; he must return her to Avraham. Hashem was not condemning Avimelech yet -- he was threatening punishment, but Avimelech had a way out by complying with Hashem's request. So how does Avimelech's answer make any sense -- "Hagoy gam tzadik ta'harog", Hashem, will you also punish the innocent? M'mah nafshach -- if Avimelech complies, then G-d will not punish him; if he does not comply, then he is not innocent, is he? The Alter explains in Madreigas ha'Adam that Avimelech was not arguing with the terms of the threat, but he was arguing with Hashem making such a threat in the first place -- since Avraham said Sarah was his sister, she was fair game! In other words, even though G-d himself came and told Avimelech that Sarah was offlimits, Avimelech defended his position based on his own corrupt reasoning and labeled G-d as the unjust one.

What proof are you going to offer to those who have their own agenda? What R' Chaim or R' Akiva Eiger held? But a person can just say that good for them, but I hold differently and I think I am right. What the Rambam said (and we all know that the Rambam is kodesh kodashim of Rishonim)? But who says the Rambam is right and not me? What R' Akiva held, what Moshe Rabeinu held, what Hashem himself holds? But you see, when you are arguing with an Avimelech, even G-d's word itself is not proof enough.

So much for this rant. Maybe a difficult Rashba later this week if I recover the urge to write.

23 comments:

  1. >>> My wife pointed out to me that a real Litvak would not be swayed by this Tiferes Shlomo. Yes, we should davka be saying over difficult Rambams, because that gufa is what strengthens the king and will lead to his release.

    I agree with your wife :-), although why is it davka a litvishe pshat?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like to tell myself that Avraham Avinu had a hard time getting an audience, and the audience he did get halleluya!ed for a while and then disappeared as soon as he wasn't around to prop them up, while others had great revival meetings and were bursting at the seams with adherents and groupies. But Avraham Avinu didn't give up anyway, because what he was doing was right and valuable, even if it only reaches one person.

    I keep telling myself that, but it usually doesn't help much. You should do like Sruli Ryzman-- get a stable of ghost writers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "What proof are you going to offer to those who have their own agenda? "

    See Beis Halevi in Parashas Bo who says that debates are futile, and that one can only *daven* for such a person, for after all, even after proofs, comes emunah.

    I would add that it might depend on the situation. From one part of the lengthy essay, the Beis Halevi seems to be referring to maskilim of his day, which as we know, were active in Volozhin as well.

    I doubt he would say about a contemporary kiruv seminar, for example, don't engage such people and just daven for them!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do they have debates in the kiruv seminars? I assume that showing up there in the first place is a positive step and shows a willingness to explore other views.

    ReplyDelete
  5. hundreds of "jewish" sites written by even "orthodox" (or maybe "orthoprax") people which create a ta'aroves and destroy the palace of the king.

    Ouch! Hope you didn't have my blog in mind...

    Please keep up the good fight.

    ReplyDelete
  6. hundreds of "jewish" sites written by even "orthodox" (or maybe "orthoprax") people which create a ta'aroves and destroy the palace of the king.

    Ouch! Hope you didn't have my blog in mind...

    Please keep up the good fight.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RJM, your blog actually is evidence to the point I make in today's post about seeing the whole forest. Without the context of the totality of a person's writing / speaking one can seize a minor detail and draw all kinds of erroneous conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "..where there may even be a beis medrash, and amidst all that there is a "Tanach" lecture by someone who happens to deny the concept of Torah min hashamayim as most of klal yisrael understands it, then the danger is far greater"- The opinions of Rav Hirsch and Soloveichik (among others) was not to hide from information that may seem wrong or offensive. We've got to hear everything out.

    "While the king sits languishing in prison we should sit here writing up answers to difficult Rambams?!"- A lot of those semi-Orthodox bloggers previously belonged to Ultra Orthodox communities, and might find a diversion of Torah enticing.

    "What proof are you going to offer to those who have their own agenda?"- Like I said, it's also our responsibility o ensure that we are not just as obstinate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Do they have debates in the kiruv seminars? I assume that showing up there in the first place is a positive step and shows a willingness to explore other views"

    That was part of my point, the issue of the sincerity of the questioner/debater.

    To be more specific, a need for "debate" does not necessarily contradict "show[ing] a willingness to explore other views".

    Mema nafshach, if kiruv has a particular answer or a proof, it shouldn't be afraid of public and open debate.

    The real possible taynah against Orthoprax bloggers, IMO, is the issue of mockery, and the concept of "keeping an open mind".

    It is hard to say whether one can fault these people merely for their questions, as the fault may lie with the generation for not dealing with them.

    Obviously, the issue here is specifics. Make a list of say, all Daat Emet's questions, and then deal with them. If Orthoprax bloggers want to debate them publicly as opposed to in a room in a kiruv yeshiva, I'm not sure how much they should be faulted, as long as they don't mock, and attempt to keep an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think you post here may shed light on why you should continue blogging on Torah:

    http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/07/r-akiva-torah-shebaal-peh-galus-and.html

    Sure, the Internet has an evil side. But can be used for holy purposes as well. It's not the medium that's evil, but the people who abuse it for evil ends. For those of us who see it's potential for good, I think we have an obligation to take the initiative and use it to those beneficial ends. And as long as someone is benefitting from these efforts - i.e., being inspired, being enlightened - then we've accomplished something good.

    I, for one, would be terribly disappointed if you stopped writing. Your blog is just so enjoyable - a perfect blend of musar, lomdus, etc.

    In fact, your blog inspired me to launch my own blog on Torah thoughts that I hope will inspire many. Coming soon....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Since we might justifiably assume that your blog (according to R' Tzadok) is a kiyum of the mitzva d'orysa of V'ata kisvu lachem es ha'shira ha'zos, why would you want to give it up?

    ReplyDelete
  13. chaim b.8:10 PM

    >>>The opinions of Rav Hirsch and Soloveichik (among others) was not to hide from information that may seem wrong or offensive.

    The opinion of R' Chaim as quoted by R' Ahron in his Torah u'Mada lecture is that studying Biblical criticism is prohibited. There can be no debate on the issue of Torah min hashamayim. Please cite your source that RYBS or R' Hirsch disagreed.

    >>>It is hard to say whether one can fault these people merely for their questions

    Depends. Do you think the questions came first and then the agenda developed? Or maybe the agenda came first and the questions are a convenient excuse to arrive at the desired conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Depends. Do you think the questions came first and then the agenda developed?"

    That's the famous point of R. Chaim: kashos or teirutzim.

    Perhaps the intellectual aspect exists in of itself. Then, there is an agenda to go further and spread a message.

    An agenda may have developed say, from a fall-out from the Slifkin issue(both that issue and the advent of blogs happened around the same time), or for some other reason.

    The question of "faulting" is also, "ba'sheir hu sham", what are they supposed to do with their mindset? One thing to do, is to at least not mock(as Daat Emet does).

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Please cite your source that RYBS or R' Hirsch disagreed"

    I don't think you can quote RSRH as an advocate of studying Bible criticism.

    R. Klugman mentions in his biography on RSRH, that Hirsch's approach was not to cite maskilim but to indirectly relate to it in his commentary. Also, one of RSRH's criticisms of "Mar Shmuel" was that RDZH quoted Wissenchaft scholars.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh man, I forgot to respond here..

    "The opinion of R' Chaim as quoted by R' Ahron in his Torah u'Mada lecture is that studying Biblical criticism is prohibited. There can be no debate on the issue of Torah min hashamayim. Please cite your source that RYBS or R' Hirsch disagreed."

    Well, in regards to Rav Soloveichik, it's clear that he was very aware of criticism since the whole Lonely Man of Faith was based on it. Rav Hirsch was also obviously well aware of it since he responded to their claim though he didn't want to mention them outright, so as not to confuse the "good guys".

    In regards to encouraging others to read it, they never said it specifically, but it's both "ma'ase rav", "da' ma shetashiv" and a full "kiyum" of the priciples of "torah i'm drech eretz" and "torah umada" to also be knowledgeable in the opinions of the "falsifiers"...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just saw this post. Much appreciated. Even based on this post, it is evident....

    ReplyDelete
  19. >>>In regards to encouraging others to read it, they never said it specifically,

    Too bad you didn't stop right there. In other words, though they never said it, and others (RYBS own brother!) said exactly the opposite, but that won't stop you from attributing this attitude towards them. That pretty much should end the discussion as far as I am concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous12:47 AM

    It is certainly interesting for me to read this blog. Thanx for it. I like such themes and anything connected to them. I definitely want to read a bit more on that blog soon.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous2:55 PM

    It is rather interesting for me to read the article. Thanks for it. I like such themes and everything that is connected to this matter. I definitely want to read more on that blog soon.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous5:56 PM

    Don't stop posting such themes. I love to read stories like that. Just add more pics :)

    ReplyDelete