Wednesday, December 09, 2009

starving at the doors of the banquet

Not Brisker Yeshivish has three back to back must-read posts (I, II, III) cataloging some of the common themes found in the thinking and writing of the the so-called rationalist/academic camp. I'm hesitant to use it as an example, but what the heck -- L'havdil, here is a passage from The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton, a book which seems to have waned in popularity but still makes some of the "100 best books of the century" lists. On p. 175 Merton writes:

How many there are in the same situation! They stand in the stacks of libraries and turn over the pages of St. Thomas's Summa with a kind of curious reverence. They talk in their seminars about "Thomas" and "Scotus" and "Augustine" and "Bonaventure" and they are familiar with Maritain and Gibson, and they have read all the poems of Hopkins -- and indeed they know more about what is best in the Catholic literary and philosophical tradition than most Catholics ever do on this earth. They sometimes go to Mass, and wonder at the dignity and restraint of the old liturgy. They are impressed by the organization of a Church in which everywhere the priests, even the most un-gifted, are able to preach at least something of a tremendous, profound, unified doctrine, and to dispense mysteriously efficacious help to all those who come to them with troubles and needs.

In a certain sense, these people have a better appreciation of the Church and of Catholicism than many Catholics have: an appreciation which is detached and intellectual and objective. But they never come into the Church. They stand and starve in the doors of the banquet -- the banquet to which they surely realize that they are invited -- while those more poor, more stupid, less gifted, less educated, sometimes even less virtuous than they, enter in and are filled at those tremendous tables.

Different religion, same contrast between the world of "objective" scholarly study and passionate belief.

And here the academic will undoubtedly object and say it is not the displacement of the passion and love of religion which is his aim, but rather his goal is simply for a different kind of passion, one that comes from understanding based on fact and reason rather than myth and folklore. Objection noted, but I don't find it to be a credible argument. In my limited experience I have not found learning or avodah outside the walls of the traditional yeshiva, where the assumptions of that world are questioned or rejected, on par with the learning and avodah within those walls -- you can be your own judge. Yes, there are interesting questions the scholar asks, articles and books that we can gain from, just like there is something to be gained by reading about the religious conversion of Merton. But I would rather stay at my own "tisch" and grab a fruit off the other table than sit at the table of the academics and sacrifice the banquet of passion and commitment on my own.

35 comments:

  1. How now, Malvolio? Would that they were invited to the banquet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And here the academic will undoubtedly object and say it is not the displacement of the passion and love of religion which is his aim, but rather his goal is simply for a different kind of passion, one that comes from understanding based on fact and reason rather than myth and folklore. Objection noted, but I don't find it to be a credible argument.

    Well, points to you for anticipating the response (though I wouldn't use the terms "myth and folklore" - I'd say "blind, unthinking acceptance of received truth") :)

    But the bottom line is, passion does NOT come from a lack of insight or understanding, such that study and understanding are barriers to passion. Rather, passion comes from a connection to Torah u'Mitzvot - and, for many of us, that connection is deepened, not weakened, by a rational, thoughtful approach to yiddishkeit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why is it not a credible argument?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Akiva, I won't quibble on the terms. And agreed that it's not understanding per se which is a barrier to passion; it is more the attitude of disinterested aloofness that comes from trying to redeuce everything to rational rules outside the boundaries of one's own subjective experience. For some, like yourself, this is a tool for deeper understanding. For others, it's just an affectation and tool to destroy what they do view as myth and folklore.

    E-man, the reason is in the post:
    "In my limited experience I have not found learning or avodah outside the walls of the traditional yeshiva, where the assumptions of that world are questioned or rejected, on par with the learning and avodah within those walls."

    ReplyDelete
  5. What Yeshiv have you been to that you see attempt this and fail? I have been to two that I have seen attempt this and succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can you one day present a post - or direct me to one that you've already written - that articulates your full position on Torah U'Madda/rationalism comprehensively?

    You are obviously someone who reads widely and appreciates much of the wisdom and beauty in Western Culture (Shakespeare, for example). What places you outside of the camp of the so-called rationalists?

    On one hand, you are conversant in scientific literature but at the same time you seem to subscribe to young earth Creationism or at least to defend those who promote it.

    I would just like to have a better handle on your point of view if possible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daas Yochid8:41 PM

    >On one hand, you are conversant in scientific literature but at the same time you seem to subscribe to young earth Creationism

    Rabbi Maroof, I think this statement tells us more about you then the baal hablog. Can you not see that these are not necessarily incompatible?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Alter of Novarhodock likened this to an airoplane, it looks very small from the ground and not like people could survive / live in it, but inside you see that there are hundreds of people.

    The same with the Torah, outsiders see it as unliveable, insiders see it is a source of life.

    BTS, Rb Chaim Zimmerman also uses the terminology of insiders and outsiders.

    pc :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike S.6:46 AM

    I am glad you have found "In my limited experience I have not found learning or avodah outside the walls of the traditional yeshiva, where the assumptions of that world are questioned or rejected, on par with the learning and avodah within those walls -- you can be your own judge." That does not comport with my experience. In my experience religious fervor is strongest among the ba'alei battim who get up to learn daf yomi before shacharit and stay up late for night shiurim. The ones I know are proudly in the rationalist camp. In the yeshivot of today(although this was not true in my youth when it was taken for granted that students would question things) what is mostly found is a smug self-righteousness that is antithetical to piety. True piety comes from the struggle to understand God and his Torah; the certainty that the understanding one had as an 8-year old is correct beyond question is utterly incompatible with this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...rational justification of faith is the idea that the existence of God is as probable as ether in physics or phlogiston in chemistry, a hypothesis that can easily be refuted or rendered superfluous by a change of premises. Such a supposition is an impotent expression for the most powerful idea of the human soul. It tries to fill out the universe with a tiny abstract figure of speech. It explains the mystery of God as badly as a bottle of milk exemplifies the Milky Way. "

    A.J. Heschel - "Reason and Revelation in Saadia's Philosophy, JQR N.S. Vol. 34,No. 4 pp. 391-408"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daas Yochid,

    I am not asserting that it is impossible to study scientific literature and to subscribe to Young Earth Creationism. I am just registering the observation that most people who do one of these things do not do the other, so I am curious about the ideology of one who does both.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rabbi Maroof,
    D.Y. beat me to the answer. I'm for embracing all knowledge, and where there are contradictions, you don't need to resolve shnei kesuvim hamakchishim. See here:
    http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/01/emunas-chachamim-and-pilpul-talmidim.html
    It's the rationalists who reject knowledge that lies beyond their often narrow channel of understanding.

    Mike S, Out of the thousands of people who filled MSG and other venues for the last siyum hashas, do you really think the majority fall into the rationalist camp (not to mention that daf yomi was started and is coordinated and promulgated by an organization that is not in that camp)? The fact that you only know "rationalist" ba'alei batim tells me about your circle of friends, but is not reflective of the populalation as a whole.
    E-man, notice that I wrote "on par" and you wrote "fail". I can count the number of yeshivos who would allow an ostensibly shomer mitzvos academic who denies Torah min hashamayim a platform to speak without using up the fingers on one hand. I need to borrow a few extra bodies to count the yeshivos and kollelim in the RW world who reject this approach entirely. In sheer quantity of learning there is no comparison, and certainly the quality the chaburos and shiurim elsewhere are as deep as what YU or other places offer.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But your approach sounds like it is throwing out the YU type places. You are saying that one is better than the other. Just because there might be more people learning in Mir does not make it a better place.

    Also, how do you know that the quality is just as good? Different Rabbanim bring different things to the table. The most important thing I learned in yeshiva is that each Rebbe has his own unique way of teaching the Gemara. If they don't, then there is not much worth to them except as a record player.

    Rav Schechter's shiur is unique, Rav Twersky's shiur is unique, and certainly you will not find any other shiur like Rav Rosenzwieg's shiur.

    This is how I understand what you hold. Since there are clearly more Charaidim that are learning in Yeshiva, this must be the right way. Also, the Gedolim are all Charaidi so that must be the correct way.

    This thinking is flawed, in my eyes. The Gedolim are Gedolim because the Charaidi community says so. Not to detract from their Torah knowledge, but it still shows how just because the Charaidim call them Gedolim does not make them any better than Rav Schechter, Rav Lichtenstein and so on.

    Also, the reason more Charaidim are in Yeshiva is because most their parents do not allow them to learn secular subjects to get a Job. Their only place to go is Yeshiva. In contrast, most people in the non-charaidi orthodox world allow their children to get Jobs and support their families. That is why more charaidim are in yeshiva than non-charaidim, because in the charaidi world, everyone goes to yeshiva for an extended period of time. In the non-charaidi world only people with a real passion and talent go into it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. >>>The Gedolim are Gedolim because the Charaidi community says so.

    No. They are gedolim because they know kol hatorah kulah better than everyone else on the planet. You reduce people who are giants into political hacks, an accusation that shows no respect for torah knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike S.1:29 PM

    I certainly didn't mean to imply that my circle is representative of the broader world. I know well that it isn't. Just that that there are many people in the rationalistic camp who are yireim v'shlaimim deeply devoted to Torah and Mitzvot.

    And if the rationalist camp runs the risk, at one extreme, of becoming an empty intellectual exercise, the more mystical path runs the risk, at its extreme, of superstitious magic of the sort that imagines that if we do the right tricks, we can make God serve us c"v, rather than vice versa. The prevalence of that sort of thinking is attested to by the ever expanding list and popularity of alleged "segulos."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your point is a good one, but I see a difference between the obsession with segulos, which is largely found among the masses, not the "intelligensia" of the RW world, and some of the dangers of rationalism, which are most evident among those who fashion themselves and are fashioned by others as the "intelligensia" of the rationalist movement. R' Shteinman or R' Elyashiv are not out there writing how-to books of segulos; academics in the field of jewish studies are writing books that take a critical view of even the 13 ikkarim.
    What I also find ironic is that, for example, I find scores of people at the local Young Israel doing stuff like reading parshas haketores from klaf, yet I have no doubt these same people would sympathize with attempts to harmonize evolution or an old universe with the torah's account of creation.
    Somehow the masses seem to have filtered out and adopted the worst of both philosophies, but that may just be my pessimistic view of mankind : )

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chaim, true the Gedolim have a lot of Torah knowledge, but so do Rav Shechter and Rav Lichtenstein. By saying that I have no respect for Torah knowledge, you clearly miss my point.

    I respect them and acknowledge them as the leaders of the Charaidi community. However, they are just that, the leaders of the Charaidi community. Their words are less important to a follower of Rav Shechter just like Rav Shechters words are worthless to their followers.

    I was not saying it was political in any way.
    My point was, if you are a follower of Rav Shechter then Rav Elyashiv's psak is meaningless to you. Same with Rav Elyashiv's talmidim ignoring Rav Shechter's psak.

    Do you understand me now? I am kind of insulted that you said I have no kavod hatorah. That was mean and pointless. Also, you did not respond to any of my points.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Akiva, I won't quibble on the terms. And agreed that it's not understanding per se which is a barrier to passion; it is more the attitude of disinterested aloofness that comes from trying to redeuce everything to rational rules outside the boundaries of one's own subjective experience. For some, like yourself, this is a tool for deeper understanding. For others, it's just an affectation and tool to destroy what they do view as myth and folklore.

    So, in other words, you have a problem not with rationalism, but with the "attitude of disinterested aloofness." The two do not go hand in hand and certainly are not interchangeable as references one for the other; to castigate "rationalism" and "rationalists" for the flaw of "disinterested aloofness" is exactly as justified as castigating "the RW" and "Chareidim" for "sgulah mania" - i.e. it simply isn't justified at all. Both comments focus on a negative in some adherents of a particular approach and use that negative as a baseball bat to attck the approach itself.

    (Which, as an aside, naturally leads to defensiveness)

    We'd all be better served if criticism were reserved for specific flaws (real or imagined) within a derech rather than saying "derech x is bad because it has y flaw" (at least, where there is some good in the derech as well)

    ReplyDelete
  19. My point was, if you are a follower of Rav Shechter then Rav Elyashiv's psak is meaningless to you. Same with Rav Elyashiv's talmidim ignoring Rav Shechter's psak.

    I wouldn'y hp sp far as to say the psak is *meaningless*

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your point is a good one, but I see a difference between the obsession with segulos, which is largely found among the masses, not the "intelligensia" of the RW world, and some of the dangers of rationalism, which are most evident among those who fashion themselves and are fashioned by others as the "intelligensia" of the rationalist movement. R' Shteinman or R' Elyashiv are not out there writing how-to books of segulos; academics in the field of jewish studies are writing books that take a critical view of even the 13 ikkarim.

    Wouldn't you say that it is better for an approach to lead to a critical flaw in a small number of its adherents rather than in a large number? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  21. >>>However, they are just that, the leaders of the Charaidi community.

    This reflects pure narrow-mindedness. When it comes to chochmas hagoyim, how quickly the quote from the Rambam of being mekabeil the emes from whoever says it is brandied about, but when it comes to torah, "It's their gedolim, not mine, so why should I listen". V'ki shtei batei dinim b'ir achas? Are you out to make your own torah seperate from that learned by the rest of klal yisrael and gedolei yisrael?
    There is simply nothing you have said to respond to. RAL and RHS are big talmidei chachamim, but there are many, many other big talmidei chachamim in the world besides them who also have unique derachim and contributions. If you choose to shut your eyes and ears to everyone except the handful of people who you claim to follow when/because they happen to echo your own preconceived beliefs, that's a shortcoming in you, not a shortcoming in the rest of the world's attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  22. HAHA, you are funny. First off, Aseh licha Rav means to make for yourself one Rabbi that you follow.

    Also, I agree, how come all the Charaidim ignore the opinions that they don't like?

    Chaim, clearly you are just stating the attitude of, "You must follow my Rabbi otherwise you are not a real Jew."

    Just admit there are several valid opinions and Rav Shechter is an opinion that one can follow.

    The funniest thing here is that you accuse me of following Rav Shechter's derech because that is what I like. First off, I did not say I follow his opinion. Secondly, how is one supposed to choose which Rav they follow in your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mike S.7:38 PM

    I know that the segulah mania does not come from the leading Roshei Yeshivah. But the rationalist school is not led by a handful of academics either. I think perhaps you are confusing rationalism with academic scholarship.

    I have no problem with either the rationalist or mystical schools as long as they avoid their extremes and don't try to write each other out of Judaism. These streams have coexisted for millennia, and one can find some of the disputes in the Tannaim. And out greatest scholars have mostly combined elements of both. The notion that it was decided finally sometime in the late nineteenth or early 20th centuries that the rationalist school is illegitimate, as some seem to want to assert, strikes me as an opinion hardly even worth serious consideration.

    By the way, I am unaware of the Aggudah trying to be on one side or the other of this dispute. And Rav Meir Simcha's thought certainly combined both schools to some extent. Nor is the split between rationalists and mystics the same as that between the Chareidi and MO communities. There are rationalists and mystics in both camps.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Daas Yochid8:23 PM

    >Rabbi Maroof: I am not asserting that it is impossible to study scientific literature and to subscribe to Young Earth Creationism.

    I think you are missing the point. The way I understand "Young Earth Creationism", is that they dispute the science on scientific grounds. I don't think you need to do that. I know I certainly don't. The point is that some of us have the ability to see science as science, not as something espousing deep philosophical truths. If you read Thomas Kuhn et al, you will see that the "truth" of science is not exactly what they told you in high school. One can simply take a pragmatic approach to it without thinking that it addresses fundamental truths.

    ReplyDelete
  25. D.Y., agree with you 100%.

    Mike S., Agree with you as well, but have to add this: The critiques of rationalism have been around for hundreds of years already and are nothing new. The only difference is that for the first time in centuries we have a group of people who, instead of accepting a critique of their conclusions as exactly that and no more, have instead decided that their conclusions are the inevitable byproduct of pure rationalism, and QED a critique of them is a critique of all the great rishonim and achronim who champion any flavor of rationalist thought. This is just propaganda, but as a result these people have proclaimed themselves seperatists who accept torah from their own gedolim (see e-man's comments), or are dismissive of torah authority entirely (I will refer you to comments on other posts if necessary). The Ohr Sameiach never did stuff like that, which is why his seforim are in every Beis Medrash and other people are m'chutz lamachana.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If Rav Soloveichik, Rav Shechter, Rav Lichtenstein, Rav Twersky, Rav Willig and several of their peers are michutz lemachaneh then you have a strange way of insulting some of the Gedolim byisroel.

    ReplyDelete
  27. No. You have a strange way of categorizing people who have never said or written a word about any of these issues as having a stake in this debate. Continue in your fantasy world.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Actually, the idea about us following our gedolim and the charaidim following theirs is not my idea by Rav Shechter,s words.

    He has said this several times in public forums. I heard him twice speak about this, once at Netiv aryeh and the second time at Shaalvim.

    Please do not assume you know things without any research into the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I find it easier to believe that you misinterpret what you are hearing than to believe on your say so that R' Shachter would say something so unbelievably stupid. No one who is a ben Torah dismisses the views of other bnei Torah (forget gedolim - I'm speaking of just talking in learning with other people) simply because the other view comes from "them" and not "us". This has nothing to do with Torah anymore -- you simply are beyond intelligent discourse because your entire focus is on who says something rather than the merits of what is being said.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow, you find the fact that people disagree about halachic psak to be stupid? And that one can follow their own Rabbanim, the Rabbanim of their community over those of some other community?

    In the times of the Sanhedrin I would agree with you, one body decides all halacha. However, after the Sanhedrin was disbanded everyone was supposed to find for themselves a teacher and follow them.

    Are you saying that sephardic communities must follow what Rav Elyashiv says? Are you to say that All the differing opinions are wrong and only one is right?

    There is always an us and them. Does Ger follow Lubovatch? Does Toldos Ahron follow Biana? What are you thiniking about?

    I supposed you will also tell me that techailes is assur, the ptil techailes factory kind, because the gedolim poskin against it.

    However, you would miss the fact that there are several Gedolim byisrael that poskin that it should be worn. Also, the Radziners wear some other varient. Are they going against halacha? But don;t they have to follow the gedolim?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "This has nothing to do with Torah anymore -- you simply are beyond intelligent discourse because your entire focus is on who says something rather than the merits of what is being said."

    Come on this is silly. You yourself do not focus on what is being said, but who said it and how much of a Gadol they are.

    Everyone chooses a Rabbi for themselves that knows a lot of Torah and trust them to make the right decisions.

    The only difference is in the YU world if something does not make sense you ask the Rabbi for the reason and talk to him about it. In the Charaidi world, even if it doesn't make sense it must be followed. Not to say one is better than the other, but your statements show that you are just reaching for a reason not to listen.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The real question here, Chaim, is that if the Gedolim have banned the use of the internet (as seen here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General%20News/43219/Rabbonim%20Come%20Out%20Strongly%20Against%20Chareidi%20Internet.html) how can you possibly be on it. Unless, you do not follow the gedolim. But how can YOU not follow the gedolim, you said there is no arguing with them. Only one set of halacha. They MUST be followed.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rationalist4:05 PM

    And here the academic will undoubtedly object and say it is not the displacement of the passion and love of religion which is his aim, but rather his goal is simply for a different kind of passion, one that comes from understanding based on fact and reason rather than myth and folklore.

    Or maybe he'll say, Sure, your approach is more motivational for most people, but some people are turned off by its intellectual deficiencies and thrive better with a rationalist approach. It's different strokes for different folks. Why can't you accept that?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ain hachi nami, but as you admit (and as is well documented by the Rishonim and Achronim who al pi rubam saw chisronos in rationalism) this is not the preferred derech for the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I've been reading through the exchange between Chaim and E-Man, and I'd just like to say that whatever the merits of the opinions presented, clarity is not advanced by descending into ad hominem rhetoric. I found it kind of distasteful and so I think you guys ought to apologize to each other, and then focus on the merits of the issues you were debating. As far as my own two cents, I think the top YU rabbanim like R' Shechter and R' Willig have tremendous respect for the RW gedolim (and vice versa). As but one example, I attended a shiur by R' Schechter where he quoted R' Elyashiv's opinion as the basis for some halacha (I forget what it was). Anyway, "eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chayim." And ultimately a true gadol is someone who is humble enough to learn from another person's Torah, whether that person be a rav, or a stam ba'al habayis. Yet, when a gadol is leading a community there are other considerations about what stands to take on different issues (and as a result, there are probably many instances of halacha v'ein morim kein). So one may never really know what a gadol's private opinion is about a particular halachic issue because there may be other considerations militating against publicizing it.

    ReplyDelete