The Meshech Chochma explains that the argument of the snake was far more subtle than simply telling Chavah to ignore G-d’s command to abstain from eating the eitz hada'as. The snake acknowledged that G-d had indeed commanded not to eat the fruit, but explained to Chavah that the reason for the prohibition is because eating the fruit would bring one to tremendous closeness with G-d -- this is the “knowledge” that would be gleaned by eating. Why then did G-d say that one who eats would die? Death, explained the snake, was not a punishment, but a consequence of the knowledge attained. It is impossible to remain involved in the temporal needs and occupations of this world and at the same time achieve the degree of spiritual ecstasy promised by eating the forbidden fruit. Therefore, one who eats must be prepared to die -- the path to spirituality demands complete surrender of existance in this world. Eating would be an aveira lishma!
The pasuk, "Lo mos temusun...," should be read as follows: "Lo!" -- No, the prohibition and punishment are not as you understand. "Mos temusun" -- Indeed, you shall certainly die if you eat from the tree, but not as a punishment, but rather, "Ki b’yom achalchem mimenu v’nifkechu eineichem" -- Because by eating your eyes shall be opened to spiritual wonder and you will no longer belong chained to mere physical existance.
After Adam and Chavah ate, they were forced to hide from G-d’s presence. Consuming the fruit produced the opposite effect they had hoped for -- they found themselves distanced from G-d, less spiritual beings than they had been earlier. G-d challenged them, “Have you eaten from the tree which I commanded not to eat from?” The pasuk repeats the command "lo tochal mimenu" to reinforce that Hashem expected obedience to the simple meaning of His words -- "Don't eat." All the philosophical justifications and elaborate explanations for why circumventing that command might be a good idea just confused and obfuscated what should have been simple.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You didn't reply to my comment at Not Brisk, so I am posting it here.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The mesorah of klal yisrael did not adopt the view demands belief in a geocentric universe. Whether that issue was once under debate, or whether the opposite view was once held, is no more relevant today than the fact that the Taz may have held your cholent is treif -- ain lecha elah hashofeit b'yamecha."
The reason why it is relevant is as a hypothetical exercise. Suppose you lived in the 17th century, and you studied astronomy and realized that Copernicus was correct. But all the Gedolim say its kefirah (as they did). Are you not allowed to believe in it? Are you not allowed to point out, as Hirsch eventually did, that you think it's compatible with Torah?
Suppose you live in the 21st century and based on your study of Bible in University you are convinced that the Torah is a man made document composed over centuries and not Divine. Thousands of scientists and professors agree with you, and offer evidence from the text, from archeology, etc. All the gedolim say this is kefirah, as it openly contradicts the 13 ikkarim. Are you allowed to believe it?
ReplyDeleteDr. Moshe Bernstein, a professor at YU who is no chareidi, has recently written -- "When we confront the problems raised by modern scholarship (and I do not deny that such problems ought to be confronted), we answer those that we can, and allow the rest to remain with tzarikh iyyun gadol, hoping that in the long run, with continued study, investigation and analysis, more and more answers, solutions and resolutions will be found."
If I lived in the 17th century and was faced with your dilemma, I would echo those words.
Sadly, because people come to the wrong answer in your 17th century hypothetical, we have people in the 21st century dealing with the question that I posed (which is essentially the same as yours) by openly denying ikkarei emunah. If the choice is kefira or leaving evidence as tzarich iyun, the answer must be tzarich iyun. You won't die from a kashe; you will lose your olam haba from kefira.
But you KNOW that the earth goes around the sun (at least, I think you do). Don't you? So what are you saying - that you would pretend that you don't know it?
ReplyDelete(If you aren't convinced that the earth goes around the sun, then substitute the earth being round.)
(With regard to your example - if I am convinced that the Torah is a man-made document, then I am convinced that the Torah is a man-made document, and obviously that removes me from Judaism.)
I know, but you asked me to pretend I lived in the 17th century.
ReplyDelete>>>obviously that removes me from Judaism
Why? Answer: because the authority of mesorah has set down certain parameters about what Judaism is. In the 21st century belief that Torah is not Divine is out of bounds, no matter what you think the evidence suggests.
Pretend you live in the 17th century. A heliocentric universe would be out of bounds, no matter what the evidence suggests.
In bounds vs. out of bounds is based on the psak of the chachmei hador. Just like had you lived in R' Eliezer's town 2000 years ago you could chop wood for a milah on Shabbos but if you tried to do it today you would be chayav kareis.
Let me put it in different words: if someone is convinced based on his/her research that the Torah is not Divine, what is he/she supposed to do -- "So what are you saying - that you would pretend that you don't know it?"
ReplyDeleteAnswer your own question...
Okay, I hear what you are saying. So if you lived in the 17th century (but you'd read Copernicus and Galileo and realized that they were correct), you would not be able to pretend that you don't believe that the earth goes around the sun, but you would be forced to admit that this places you outside of Judaism, since the Gedolim say it is out of bounds.
ReplyDeleteBut what if there was one widely respected Godol who said that it's okay to believe that? And what if he happened to be your rebbe?
You seem to disregard completely the possibility of being in an indeterminate state -- i.e. faced with the evidence vs. mesorah, you choose neither. I am a big believer in the truth of Keats' theory of negative capability.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to cut to the chase, in response to the rebbe question, no different than any other area of halacha.
So you WOULD then openly maintain your position that the earth goes around the sun, and you wouldn't see yourself as being outside of Judaism.
ReplyDeleteSo how is Slifkin any different?
You lost me... where did I say any such thing?
ReplyDeleteSorry, let's go back. If you were in the 17th century, you were a proficient astronomer and had read Copernicus and Galileo and realized that they were correct, but all the Gedolim say it's kefirah, except for your personal Rav, who is of fine stature. Are you allowed to follow him? Are you allowed to write a sefer explaining his view?
ReplyDeleteYes. With 3 caveats:
ReplyDeleteYou can't in the 17th century say "My Rav is Bais Shamai" and start acting accordingly. You can't say "My rebbe is R' Avraham ben haRambam" irrespective of the views of whomever has lived since then.
Secondly, your rebbe better be an equal bar plugta of those who disagree, e.g. if I tell you there is a R' Akiva Eiger against your view, the fact that your local orthodox Rabbi thinks otherwise is a kashe on him, not a valid reason to not hold like RAK"E.
Thirdly, those who do disagree will undoubtedly vehemently defend their opinion, and you should not expect their sympathy or tolerance if you choose to adopt a shitas yachid.
So tachlis, which gadol b'yisrael can you name for me who believes humans evolved? The fact that Hirsch wrote that if it is true it does not pose a kashe is not the same as a living gadol whose direction you follow affirming that it is true. Names please...
Secondarily, let's not pretend that this is about the right to pasken like one's rav. When you (and others) first commented on the issue, you did not immediatly say, "What do you want from me -- I am just relying on Reb Ploni." If that is the crux of your argument, why beat around the bush and say other things?
Your first two caveats can be solved together. If there were Rishonim who said something, and you have a rebbe today who has a mesorah to say the same, then he surely doesn't need to be a bar plugta of those today who argue on him.
ReplyDeleteNow, the main issue with Slifkin's books was Chazal and science, and there are certainly many rabbonim, even Gedolim, who have a mesorah like the Rishonim. As for evolution, there are likewise many rabbonim who say that it's legitimate to follow Hirsch, that it is not a theological problem (there is NO DIFFERENCE between saying that it is not a theological problem and saying that it is true.) Plus there was Rav Gedalyah Nadel who said that it was true.
With regard to your final point - I modified what I was saying to accomodate your claim that it's not just about what's true, it's about Judaism being defined by contemporary consensus.
>>>then he surely doesn't need to be a bar plugta of those today who argue on him.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Surely you can't decide to observe Shabbos in accordance with all the Rambam's views if there is a tradition of psak (e.g. shulchan aruch, achronim...) like other views. Just because there are Rishonim who say something means very little -- has tradition adopted their view or other views?
Again, please give me the name of one single gadol on record as favoring evolution -- not generalities like "lots of rabbaanim". Who are you referring to who is alive today who says these things?
Are you a talmid of R' G. Nadel to the extent that you adopt all of his views even if a majority of gedolei yisrael say the opposite? What other views of R' Nadel do you follow?
Secondarily: There is a big difference between saying something is not a theological problem and saying it is true. Simple example: the Ra'avad writes that one cannot be labelled an apikores for thinking G-d has a body. Acc. to the Ra'avad it's not a theological problem, but it's undoubtedly not true.
Why not? Surely you can't decide to observe Shabbos in accordance with all the Rambam's views if there is a tradition of psak (e.g. shulchan aruch, achronim...) like other views
ReplyDeleteOf course you can, if you are Teimani and you have a mesorah that way! Are you saying that the Teimanim have no right to follow the Rambam?
So why do you need a living gadol? As long as in the past there were gedolim who said it, and you have a mesorah back to them, that's all you need!
There is a big difference between saying something is not a theological problem and saying it is true. Simple example: the Ra'avad writes that one cannot be labelled an apikores for thinking G-d has a body. Acc. to the Ra'avad it's not a theological problem, but it's undoubtedly not true.
Nonsense! According to Ra'avad it is most definitely a severe theological error, just not one that makes you into an apikores. Whereas according to Hirsch, evolution is not a theological error at all.
>>>if you are Teimani
ReplyDeleteExactly.... and you and I are not.
>>>and you have a mesorah back to them,
Exactly again. If your rebbe holds that way, you have a mesorah. If not, then not. If there is no living connection between you and that shita, how can you possibly claim it as your mesorah? What does the view of community X, be it teimanim, be it yekkes, have to do with you when your rebbe or yourself are not part of that community?
Look at it this way... assuming you were not born a yekke and/or are not part of their kehillah, do you think you have a halachic leg to stand on if you choose to disregard the minhag of the majority of klal yisrael and start waiting only three hours between fleishig and milchig? Even if you brought me a pile of rishonim who are yekkes and you want to follow them, that would not change the fact that klal yisrael has adopted the minhag of waiting 6 hours based on the shach.
You have conspicuously avoided naming any living gadol who agrees with the views you are defending... so how can you call that having a a "mesorah"? Where did that mesorah come from?
Also, are you consistant? If you are a Hirschian, do you also espouse his anti-Zionist views?
First of all, there IS a difference between hashkafah and halachah. So yes, with hashkafah you CAN pick and choose.
ReplyDeleteSecond, this is not a matter of being a Hirschian per se, but rather of adopting an approach that is EXTREMELY widespread amongst Rishonim, Acharonim, and rabbonim today.
Second, I did address the issue of "living gadol." You don't need a "living gadol" - you need a dead gadol PLUS a living rebbe. (If you want a "living gadol," I can tell you that Rav Herschel Shechter believes that CHazal erred in science). And there are plenty of living rebbeim who maintain the shittah of dozens of Rishonim and Acharonim that Chazal were fallible in science. Pretty much every single Rav who is not part of the charedi world!
So how can you possibly object to someone maintaining this view, when it is absolutely normative in non-charedi communities?
>>>with hashkafah you CAN pick and choose.
ReplyDelete1) Aren't you the guy who just told me you need a rebbe and a mesorah...? I'm confused.
2) Chazal erring in science is just one manifestation of a worldview this dismisses all that is non-rational entirely, gives more credibility to scientific "evidence" than mesorah, and which has arrived at conclusions which contradict what *all* gedolim say. As I have written before, if those who held your view said "We philosophically agree with the RW world, but in this one prat feel differently", neicha, but that is not what is going on. Instead, the emphasis has deliberately been placed on differences in philosophy. I reject that view not because I identify with the chareidi world, but because I cannot harmonize those philosophical underpinnings with the ideology of RYBS, R' Ahron, R' Kook, or anyone else in the centrist world who I do indentify with.
We are far afield already from your original hypothetical. Let me get back to it to make the point. Once you concede that some mesorah, some rebbe, some torah authority is needed to justify a belief and scientific fact alone is insufficient justification, you have made a major concession that no true rationalist would ever make (at least many so called rationalists who commented here in the past would never concede that point). You have conceded the philosophical argument that mesorah trumps facts, i.e. if hypothetically every gadol said "X is false", you would be forced to agree to that even if evidence told you "X is true". The die-hard rationalists will never admit that point. Once "evidence" trumps mesorah, you are in dangerous waters, and your philosophy I think is on very faulty ground.
3) You switched topic from evolution to belief that Chazal erred. Can you please name a contemporary gadol or rebbe of yours who subscribes to the theory of evolution? If you have no mesorah, no gadol, no rebbe that you have learned by that OKs it, are you willing to retract that belief, even if the evidence tells you otherwise?
1) I don't believe that you need a rebbe or mesorah to believe that something is true. However, I am accepting your point that to be accepted within the Jewish community as a member in good standing, the fact that something is true is not enough.
ReplyDelete2) Chazal erring in science is just one manifestation of a worldview this dismisses all that is non-rational entirely
Nonsense!
gives more credibility to scientific "evidence" than mesorah,
Yes, as did plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim. And you, too, unless you think that the earth is really stationary, and the heart is the home of understanding?
and which has arrived at conclusions which contradict what *all* gedolim say.
Too vague.
Once you concede that some mesorah, some rebbe, some torah authority is needed to justify a belief and scientific fact alone is insufficient justification, you have made a major concession that no true rationalist would ever make
I am only conceding it vis-a-vis your point that if you want to be accepted in the community, it's not enough to believe/prove that a belief is true.
3) I can name two dead Gedolim - Rav Nadel and Rav HIrsch (I proved above that "not a theological problem" is perfectly sufficient). My rebbeim also believe it, but I don't want to name them.
So far, you have not remotely backed up your claim that it is forbidden to say that Chazal erred in science. Plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim said it, and plenty of rabbis today have that mesorah. So the fact that the consensus of charedi Gedolim is against it does not mean that people not in the charedi community are not entitled to maintain and teach that view.
>>>So far, you have not remotely backed up your claim that it is forbidden to say that Chazal erred in science.
ReplyDeletePlease reread what I wrote, as I did not say this. It is the whole package which is the problem.
I think adopting a hashkafa (e.g. evolution) because some source in history who is not your rebbe held of it as "not a theological problem", i.e. a bdieved, regardless of the fact that you are not part of that community, regardless of the number and weight of authority who oppose it, regardless of historically whether that view has been adopted as mainstream or not, makes no more sense than saying you choose to pasken like the MG"A instead of all the achronim who may disagree in a sugya in hilchos shabbos. Logically there is no difference between the cases.
I don't understand what you mean by "entitled to maintain" a view. You can maintain any view you like -- it's a free country -- but you pay the price of being intellectually excluded by communities which view those views as outside the pale of their belief system.
Where did R. HIrsch say that evolution is theologically a bedieved? He said no such thing.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to be part of the Hirschian community to be entitled to follow it. The entire Centrist Orthodox community adopts that view!
That's why your parallel to the MG"A is so off.
Furthermore, the weight of those who oppose Hirsch's view is pretty insignificant. Sure, there are lots of choshuve Gedolim who say it's treif. But how many of them have written detailed teshuvos on it? How many of them have given it any serious thought, or even know what evolution is? How many of them have even read what Hirsch says about it?
None at all.
Assuming someone is convinced by the evidence (as 99% of the scholarly community is) that Tanach was composed over centuries by man and not Divinly given, by your definition, is that person an apikores for denying one of the 13 ikkarim? Why?
ReplyDeleteThat person has excluded himself from every Jewish community over all time.
ReplyDeleteI'm stunned that you liken someone who is following virtually all of the Rishonim, many Acharonim, and the entire Centrist Orthodox community, to such a person.
Your position makes a mockery of the idea of "Authentic Judaism" If it can change min hakotzeh el hakotzeh, what's the difference between this and Reform?
I am not comparing the two. I was simply using the question to illustrate that even you draw a line at some point and defer to faith over evidence. You can wade through some of the comments to previous posts or browse some other blogs and I can assure you that other people who also claim the label "rationalist" would disagree and reject the limits which you place. After all, truth is truth -- just because the community has not adopted it, does that mean we should live a life of sheker?
ReplyDeleteWhat I have been trying to convey is that the difference between your views and the chareidi world is not one of philosophy, but simply where to draw the line as out of bounds. Had that been the limit of this controversy, I doubt the reaction would have been so harsh. But once blown into a philosophical dispute, with adherents of so-called "rationalism" going to the point of denying ikkarei emunah, what do you expect the reaction to be?
Re: "Authentic Judaism", see R' Tzadok haKohen in Tzidkas haTzadik #90, which captures the idea.
I hope this covers everything. Sorry, I am short time to write more and covered a lot of this in previous posts.
And I could show that even your camp draws the line at some point and defer to evidence over mesorah. Such as with the earth going around the sun, the non-existence of spontaneous generation, the heart being merely a physical organ, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut I thought that the point of this discussion was not the theoretical parameters of rationalism, but rather the specific topic of Chazal's errors in science and evolution. You claimed that it is not legitimate for a Jew to believe in these things and teach them, and I disproved that (at least for Jews outside of the charedi community), even leshitasecha.