Maharal asks: Why does the Torah use the obscure term "bikores", which you need a Rashi to understand, instead of the more common term "malkos"? Isn't the term "malkos," which refers to the lashes administered, a better definition of the punishment than "bikores," which refers only to the incidental reading of the pesukim?
There is a tremendous musar yesod here: Apparently the psychological blow that comes from hearing words of rebuke are in fact far more painful and far greater punishment than the physical blows that accompany them. A person can still in his/her mind believe themselves in the right even while getting beaten up. The same is not true while listening to Beis Din read off what an evildoer they actually are.
(Parenthetically, see this recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed for an interesting spin on flogging.)
2. I want to follow up yesterday's post on da mah she'tashiv with a hypothetical that I think helps reinforce the point. It sounds idealistic to shoot for the whole truth and nothing but the truth and not to try to "misrepresent" Judaism -- but does that really make sense? Suppose someone is about to commit suicide. You can intervene and possibly save that person's life, but to do so you need to bend the truth a little bit to tell them a story that will hopefully get them down from the roof.
Do you:
1) Sacrifice a little bit of truth for the sake of getting the person out of danger, trusting that you can work things out when they are in a position to see think more clearly;
2) Or do you cling to the ideal of truth at all costs, refusing to color things in the slightest, even if it means they will jump?
Kiruv seminars are meant for people in the process of committing spiritual suicide. If talking someone down from the ledge is made easier by sacrificing a little precision in argument, you tell me -- is the trade-off worth it?
your analogy proves quite a different point than you intended.
ReplyDeleteafter you talked the unstable person off the roof, would you just let him loose on the sidewalk and walk away?
would you talk him down with a story which is plainly false and easily verifiable as false ,and walk away ?
he'll be back up on the roof in an instant- and won't listen a second time to 'silly stories'
What he said
ReplyDeleteYeah people can see through this "kiruv" nonsense that whitewashes Judaism and when they figure it out they are not happy.
ReplyDelete>>>after you talked the unstable person off the roof, would you just let him loose on the sidewalk and walk away?
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about doing that?
>>>with a story which is plainly false and easily verifiable as false
Where did I say that? Let me give you an example. If someone loved Eretz Yisrael but is not religious, wouldn't Yom haAtzmaut be a great opportunity to explain how there is a deep connection between Torah and Eretz Yisrael that may attract them to try to learn more? But were I to and that argument to be mekareiv someone you can easily say I am being dishonest -- it reflects my personal belief, but hides the fact that Orthodoxy includes Satmar, Brisk, and others who see Zionism and Torah as antithetical.
Kiruv = chinuch. It needs to happen in stages. The pshat in chumash you tell an elementary school kid is not a lie, but is at the same time not a complete picture. It's just the first stage in learning. Same applies to adults.
>>>Yeah people can see through this "kiruv" nonsense that whitewashes Judaism and when they figure it out they are not happy
ReplyDeleteSo it 50% of the potential kiruv recruits drop out and 50% stick with the program you have a net gain of 50%. I'm missing something -- where's the downside? You think you have a program that will produce 100% results?
>>>after you talked the unstable person off the roof, would you just let him loose on the sidewalk and walk away?
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about doing that?
1-currently existing kiruv programs
do not include follow-up
2- 50% is a wild fantasy . all the poskim that i have spoken to said that it is better to leave the shogeg than create the meizid.
one on one counseling is another matter entirely, and i have had tremendous success with that.
3- if you're talking about the "ortho prax crisis" then everything i said in the original comment is true, times 10
The pshat in chumash you tell an elementary school kid is not a lie,
ReplyDeletefirstly ;yes it is a lie . our current chumash chinuch is a travesty.
what's worse, we never go back to correct that naarishkeit .even the "klei koddesh" who spend all their time [ 6 hrs a day ?] learning never go back and learn chumash with ramban, rashbam,sforno,rambam.
your typical frum person thinks pshat in any given passuk is the most fanciful agadda that [rashi or] his gannenet presented.
[but they know zevachim inside-out]
When you teach Chumash in a simple way, it is true at it's level. When you use an argument known to be false as Kiruv, that is sheker. when discovered, the is appropriate resentment and dissillusionment.
ReplyDeletehere's a twist, & a looong-shot
ReplyDelete("kiruv" not to alien insiders,
but to historic outsiders!)--
had we, wherever dispersed, gener-
ously & tenaciously encouraged non-
jews to burn korbonos, would we've
been thus a (limited) light to the
nations? would this exile have
been eased, or shortened? would
fewer Jews have been burnt bodily,
had we not merely studied korbonos
("as if we'd actually offered them"), but also noisily if perilously taught gentiles that they've a dramatic religious role building & loading their very own sanctioned bamahs? ("reiach nichoach" to Hashem? partial compensation for the missing mizbeach hamikdash?)-- did Avraham
teach Lot exclusively? Ishmael only? Yitzchak alone??
Aggados are not fairy tales. If you think they are, that is because you have not progressed in your own understanding to appreciate the point of the ostensibly fanciful stories. Torah is not merely a historical account that can be reduced to who, what, when, where, and how. 70 panim l'Torah means that there is not just one true pshat and that all the rest are mere fancy. It means that there are multiple aspects of meaning that are all valid. Of course, it is also possible to come up with a 71st, which is beyond the pale. That is why not all pshatim are acceptable, but anything based on Chazal is meaningful.
ReplyDelete>>>When you teach Chumash in a simple way, it is true at it's level. When you use an argument known to be false as Kiruv, that is sheker.
ReplyDeleteI am sure you realize that one could just as easily say that it is truth on the level of the listener. You make your argument more appealing by switching terms from 'teaching in a simple way' to 'us[ing] an argument known to be false' but that's not fair. Use the same terms -- teaching Torah in a simple way to people who have had no previous Torah education: are you calling that a lie, or teaching to the level of the student? I call it the latter.
>>>yes it is a lie . our current chumash chinuch is a travesty.
I agree with you 100% on the travesty part. However, I wouldn't call it a lie. My knowledge of Torah is undoubtedly not a drop in the ocean compared to a gadol -- does that mean my understanding is a lie? To each on his level.
The travesty is that people are capable of so much more yet remain on a first grade level.
>>>one on one counseling is another matter entirely
ReplyDeleteTwo different issues:
Issue #1 -- is there an allowance for presenting a simplistic approach that is more easily digestible even if it be less than exact (i.e. truthful) for the sake of kiruv.
Issue #2 -- are the present day kiruv businesses doing an adequate job in walking returnees down the road from simplistic understanding (assuming you agree that is the starting point) to more sophisticated understanding, or are their efforts for naught because there is no follow up, returnees regress to being chotei b'meizid because of the methods employed, or other pitfalls?
My comments are limited to issue #1. I don't know enough about #2 to comment. It sounds like you have experience doing this type of work and have looked into it more.
there is a world of difference between falsified, misleading , and simplistic. simplistic is a fine starting point. isn't shulchan aruch a simplistic version of halacha ?
ReplyDeleteobviously the kiruv franchises have had some success but they themselves don't know how much . the follow-up is delegated , by default , to the local world of the returnee, for better or worse
My son, who works with the Torah Links program in Marlboro, New Jersey, was motivated by exactly the problem you describe. Among the several tools he uses to address that issue, he created a night kollel to which yungeleit come from Lakewood to learn with baaleibatim. He also says shiurim there- iyun. Baalebatim have grown considerably in serious limud hatorah- worlds beyond baby food. One has made a siyum on Maseches Chulin. He has to raise the money for the kollel himself, and it's a bear, but he knows how important it is.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the approach is how subjective it is, and how it essentially gives license for anyone to seduce people with untruth all because they believe the goal is greater. But even if we circumvent that objection, how do we know where bending the truth a little stops and lie a little starts?
ReplyDeleteNow, the issue of whether mekarevim knowingly lie or oversimplify is another matter.
Shammai, with his yardstick, (Shabbos 31a) wouldn't have been successful at Kiruv, just as Moshe Rabbeinu was not as effective as Aharon Hakohen in the reconciliation department (Medrash Rabba Bamidbar 20:29 and Sanhedrin 6b.)
ReplyDelete>>>how do we know where bending the truth a little stops and lie a little starts?
ReplyDeleteIt's pointless to debate pratei pratim like this in the abstract. When the question arises, a she'elas chacham is needed.
"Seduce" is a word with very negative connotations. Are advertisers guilty of "seducing" customers by portraying their products in the best possible light, coming right up to the very edge of the barrier between truth and falsehood?