tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post6559739937303986075..comments2024-03-28T21:21:02.777-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: engaging in secular pursuits: "yatzo v'shov" of the ravenChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-88913772757766513692009-11-04T22:07:17.077-05:002009-11-04T22:07:17.077-05:00I just saw a letter to the editor on the Jewish St...I just saw a letter to the editor on the Jewish Star's site. I agree with the view it presents, though, undoubtedly, there are those who would declare it "offensive." The link is: http://thejewishstar.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/letter-to-the-editor-3/<br /> <br />and the text is as follows:<br /><br />Issue of November 6, 2009/ 19 Cheshvan 5770<br />More on secular college<br />To the Editor:<br />I was quite surprised to see the vehemence of the reaction to Rabbi Reuven Spolter’s article criticizing those who send their kids to out of town residential campuses (The elephant in the room; In My View; Oct 16, 2009). I do understand much of what they feel in defense of the practice, but at the same time, Rabbi Spolter’s concerns are not to be shrugged off lightly.<br />If it is true that one quarter of our Orthodox youth are wooed away from Orthodoxy on the secular college campus, then I pose the following question: If you found a piece of meat that was “kosher by three-quarters”, would you eat it? I would assume not. I chose my metaphor with care. For too many parents in the Orthodox community, the only real concern is the availability of kosher food. The kashrus of the environment doesn’t quite seem to be a priority. Columbia, U of P and, perhaps, Brandeis, are exceptional in the quality of Jewish life on campus. I had occasion a few years back to speak at SUNY Binghamton. Clearly there is a fine kosher eating facility and a dedicated Chabad shaliach. But it is a spiritual “midbar” for a child with 13 years of yeshiva education. Although this is anecdotal evidence, I suspect that it is reflective of most college environments.<br />I agree that Yeshiva University is not for everyone, but of my two Queens College graduates, one is a Fordham Law grad and the other is finishing Columbia Dental School. They will tell you that the education was excellent, and I was able to rest comfortably with their living in a healthier environment, off-campus. Perhaps there are aspects of the college experience that they did miss, but I believe that Torah u’Madda or Torah im Derech Eretz assumes at least a minimal measure of sacrifice in order to place Torah first.<br />Rabbi David M. Friedman<br />OceansideAriella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-81114399991111706122009-11-02T20:13:52.937-05:002009-11-02T20:13:52.937-05:00I just read the 80 plus comments. I would frame th...I just read the 80 plus comments. I would frame the issue differently...given that many Orthodox Jews want their children to go to good colleges, and would chalish for a frum boy graduating Harvard Medical School as an eidem, what are the implications for Orthodoxy? <br /><br />Except for a small minority, most every Orthodox Jew at universities comes into close contact with other Jews raised differently. Wouldn't this have some effect at the attempt to demonize non -Orthodox Jews? After hanging out at Hilel, understanding oneself as Orthodox by choice might seem a better description than Orthodox or 'sheigitz', as the charedim would have people believe. Such changes in perception should make a difference over time. It might make some people even more frum, but I think on the whole it will lead to more post-denominational attitudes.evanstonjewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12339214545349794973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-37738995922242792932009-10-29T08:53:50.841-04:002009-10-29T08:53:50.841-04:00One final (I think), intriguing thought.
What'...One final (I think), intriguing thought.<br /><br />What's the 'net loss' (or gain) in terms of Orthodox Jewry on campus?<br /><br />Remember, according to the survey, some 30% of students change denomination, and Reform and Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews made up at least 92%, and probably more, of the >2000 students surveyed. If even a paltry 10% changed their identity to Orthodox (and remember that over 50% of leaders and over 30% of Jewish-ly engaged students became more observant over their college careers), then a total of some 60 students became Orthodox, while substantially fewer Orthodox students lost their denomination. (The exact number depends on the unknown number of Orthodox students, which in practice could not exceed 8%)<br /><br />So, a system which loses some Orthodox students and gains many more - good thing or bad? <br /><br />No doubt it's a complex question, but before deciding, remember this - we already have such a system, it's called kiruv. Every year an unknown number of non-Orthodox become observant thanks to kiruv work and an unknown (but non-zero) number of Orthodox kiruv workers go off the derech. To my knowledge there is no hard data on this subject and I am quite skeptical that there ever will be. Indeed, some authorities are opposed to the kiruv system for this very reason, but many other support it. I see no reason why secular college, which appears to have a similar effect, should be treated any differently.Hillelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-24387120128545180512009-10-29T08:40:50.564-04:002009-10-29T08:40:50.564-04:00One additional point about the misuse of stats in ...One additional point about the misuse of stats in the article and this blog post:<br /><br />The assumption (again, with no data) of uniform distribution. This would be remarkably unlikely.<br /><br />In other words, even if the sample of Orthodox students were large enough to be significant (and there's no data supporting that) AND assuming those who self-identified as Orthodox actually practiced halacha (again, no data) AND assuming their change in denominational identity meant becoming less observant (intuitive, but again no data), in that case... we would STILL not be able to say anything about 'the effect of secular college on Orthodox Jews.' <br /><br />The reason is simple - distribution was not accounted for. What if substantially all those who lost their Orthodox identity went to small liberal arts colleges in cities with small or no Orthodox populations? What if they all came from single-gender schools and were suddenly thrust into a co-ed environment, or went to a school with strict doctrines and were suddenly confronted by seminars filled with people and professors who found their opinions about dinosaurs or sacred text downright comical? <br /><br />The data would still tell us nothing about the effect of 'secular college' on 'Orthodox students', but we might learn something valuable about the effect of certain specific environments on certain types of students.<br /><br />It's kind of sad that this survey, which could have served as the basis for a call to study the effects of all those factors on different types of students was instead perverted into an unsupported, blunderbuss attack on all 'secular colleges. Sigh.Hillelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-8651178515396840942009-10-29T06:22:16.145-04:002009-10-29T06:22:16.145-04:00I don't understand this derision of anecdotal ...<i>I don't understand this derision of anecdotal evidence. That's what we rely on when we get married, when we hire an employee, when we make investments, when we make most life decisions. True, anecdotal evidence often hides counter intuitive truths; but just because some planes crash doesn't mean that we should never fly.</i><br /><br />In this case, because anyone with enough experience can cite anecdotes pointing both ways.<br /><br />By the way, your "seifa" is against your "reisha", in that you encourage flying despite the anecdotal evidence of occasional crashes.Mike S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-32485156875046797902009-10-28T23:11:24.584-04:002009-10-28T23:11:24.584-04:00(CTD)
3) What percentage of the self-identified &#...(CTD)<br />3) What percentage of the self-identified 'Orthodox' were shomer halacha? This comment has been touched upon by R' Willig and others, but the data provide a clue. According to the survey, over 50% of students involved in Jewish life (such as attending services and eating kosher food) became MORE observant over their college career, and only 21% became less observant (33%of those 'engaged' in Jewish life became less religious, 31% more religious). By definition, anyone who is shomer halacha must be considered at least engaged, and probably a leader, under the terms of the study. However, if 25% of Orthodox Jews changed denominations (half became Conservative, the other half something else, see point 4), that would mean close to 100% overlap between denomination change and lessening observance! In other words, under that interpretation of the data, Orthodox Jews who go to secular college either become more observant or stop being Orthodox, and almost never become somewhat less observant but still consider themselves Orthodox. This is technically possible, but seems counterintuitive. A far more logical explanation is that a certain percentage of students who self-identify as Orthodox do so because of family background or because they attended an orthodox shul 3 days a year or had an Orthodox bar/bat mitzvah, but were not engaged in Jewish life or shomer halacha. Is it any surprise that after a few years at college spending time with Conservative and Reform Jews, they would feel more comfortable with that identification? And yet, their practices may well not have changed at all.<br /><br />4) What does 'denomination change' mean? It is important to note that the survey never says what the change in denomination means. Half the students became Conservative - what of the rest? Did they become Reform? Reconstructionist? Buddhist? Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox? Did they retain their practices but simply reject the denominational system? I certainly agree that the most likely result is that the students became identified with a less observant denomination, but there are no data to prove this, and when we may well be dealing with a very small sample size (see point 1), the actions of just 1 or 2 students could have a huge impact.<br /><br />In conclusion - read the study, learn some stats, then reach you own conclusions. But doggone it if many of the statements made in the article and these posts haven't been made without regard to the data.Hillelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-68745592518595352802009-10-28T23:11:02.957-04:002009-10-28T23:11:02.957-04:00This article, blog post and the comments they have...This article, blog post and the comments they have engendered have been quite an eye-opening experience.<br /><br />Specifically, I have learned that a surprising number of people will make incredibly broad statements about statistics contained in a study, when they have obviously not read the study and apparently know little or nothing about statistics. <br /><br />The following are a few highlights of the myriad problems with many, many of the statements made (including, incidentally, the original article):<br /><br />1) What is the sample size? If the study (of over 4000 students, over 2000 Jewish students) contained responses from 8 Orthodox students, 2 of whom stopped being Orthodox, the sample size is too small to make any determination at all. If anyone had read the survey, they would see that, at most, 8% of the respondents were shomer basic hilchot shabbat. I took the liberty of contacting Drs. Sales and Saxe, and they informed me the true number of Orthodox students was likely far less than that. If we are talking about 1 or 2% of the population of the survey (and again -we have no data) this broad indictment of all secular colleges may be based on the actions of five or ten students (out of 4000 surveyed) who may or may not have been shomer halacha in the first place.<br /><br />2) 25% compared to what? The original article (and many of the posts in this thread) have not been comparing apples to oranges, they have been comparing apples to nothing! We have no data as to the 'attrition rate' (however one would wish to define the term) from YU or any other institution, however religious the reputation. I'm sure people would love to think whatever they want about the identities and practices of students who attended Yeshiva X or Y, but absent hard data - and there are none - any such comparisons are useless and invalid - and intellectually dishonest. This also shows the flaw in the approach taken in the above post, since nearly all institutions have some people go 'off the derech.' Let's say at frum yeshiva X, 1% of talmidim go off the derech. Shall we tell everyone not to go there since it's like playing roulette with a 1% chance of catching a bullet? (CTD.)Hillelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-31254602220647013772009-10-28T14:30:05.841-04:002009-10-28T14:30:05.841-04:00"Wrong. Those quote marks were there for a re...<i>"Wrong. Those quote marks were there for a reason"</i><br />you quoted, but one of those quotes was a statement that "not only do i not necessarily maintain this".<br /><br />the question is WHAT do I not necessarily maintain. i do not necessarily maintain what you SUMMARIZED my position as, namely that:<br /><i>"Nor have you explained to us how a period of talmud once a day in a coed environment prepares one adequetly for the immense challenges to one's belief that secular college, esp. away from home, can present."</i><br /><br />THAT was the summary in your own words. you then juxtaposed my assertion that i don't maintain your summary, with the words that you summarized, that "a large part of this came from being ideologically prepared;"<br /><br />but if YOUR SUMMARY of the latter quote is not the same as the intent of the latter quote, then the juxtaposition of quotes from me shows absolutely nothing.<br /><br />this doesn't count as my final reply.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-58786602389492423792009-10-28T14:22:23.030-04:002009-10-28T14:22:23.030-04:00"In fact, I can't find Rabbi Willig or hi..."In fact, I can't find Rabbi Willig or his son mentioned at all."<br /><br />"<b>And your child</b> is the next R' Soloveitchik? And U. of Penn is just like Berlin before the war?"<br /><br />"Indeed, <b>your child</b> may go to yeshiva and be brainwashed to learn Torah"<br /><br />this, in response to Rabbi Willig's letter. if you meant "your child" in the general sense, then this is yet another thing that could be fixed.<br /><br />that you did not provide a direct link to the Letters section, but instead just to the paper, is not such a barrier.<br /><br />"And again, you ignore the substantive point -- no matter what the risk, R' Willig prefers it to the danger of "fundamentalism". Read. his. words."<br />this is something you are *able* to read INTO his words. one could also read it as why, given the choice between YU and Brandeis, a particular individual might consider it more optimal to attend Brandeis. the hashkafic climate is more likely to result in the finished product he would like to see in his son.<br /><br />"Really? A chiyuv? "<br />yes. if not a chiyuv, then at least a mitzvah.<br /><br />"You mean R' Chaim spent his time studying science?"<br />who says that i am basing this on Rav Chaim?<br /><br />I wrote:<br />"having frum role-models of teachers who have gone through this experience"<br />because Rabbi Willig mentioned how his son's Rosh Yeshiva also went to Brandeis.<br /><br />in responding to this, you wrote:<br />"Most HS's do not have a policy of hiring only frum teachers and those teachers in secular classes make no effort to discuss or explain how their subjects can be integrated into Torah."<br />which implies that I was saying that ALL the teachers were frum people who attended university. do you see the disconnect?<br /><br />"and those teachers in secular classes make no effort to discuss or explain how their subjects can be integrated into Torah"<br />but maybe in the limudei <b>kodesh</b>, they do make an effort to discuss it.<br /><br />"Again, your assumptions are undermined by reality."<br />in my school, our secular studies classes were not taught by frum people. but we could talk to our rabbeim about these issues. and when introducing evolution, our science teacher made an announcement about how it was one *theory* that we would learn, though the Jewish perspective might be different. and the hanhalah did have a say in terms of what was taught in the English classes.<br /><br />regardless, that is not what i said.<br /><br />this is getting silly, and i think i am going to restrict myself to a total of <b>one</b> more reply.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-71542023963591454812009-10-28T13:51:54.605-04:002009-10-28T13:51:54.605-04:00>>>you falsely state that there is a 25% ...>>>you falsely state that there is a 25% chance that Rabbi Willig's son will become conservative<br /><br />Really? And I thought my post was discussing the general issue of whether Jews should attend secular university. In fact, I can't find Rabbi Willig or his son mentioned at all. <br /><br />>>>and you falsely imply that Rabbi Willig admits that a 25% chance exists,<br /><br />Wrong again, please see comment before this one. And again, you ignore the substantive point -- no matter what the risk, R' Willig prefers it to the danger of "fundamentalism". Read. his. words.<br /><br />>>>you summarize my position in your own words<br /><br />Wrong. Those quote marks were there for a reason -- it's not a summary, it's exzctly what you <br />wrote.<br /><br />>>>that it is our religious obligation to integrate Torah and science,<br /><br />Really? A chiyuv? I won't even ask where this comes from. You mean R' Chaim spent his time studying science?<br /><br />>>>having frum role-models of teachers who have gone through this experience<br /><br />Most HS's do not have a policy of hiring only frum teachers and those teachers in secular classes make no effort to discuss or explain how their subjects can be integrated into Torah. Again, your assumptions are undermined by reality. <br /><br />>>>getting drilled into you that one CAN exist in the secular world<br /><br />Keep drilling into a kid that he can fly and don't be surprised when he jumps out the window.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-47022075166047281002009-10-28T13:47:27.897-04:002009-10-28T13:47:27.897-04:00you also assert in the body of the post that it is...you also assert in the body of the post that it is either the case that 25% of college students go off the derech, or that 25% of graduates of HALB, HAFTR, HANC go off the derech, and that either is a condemnation of MO elementary and secondary education.<br /><br /><i>"First of all, who cares what the cause is -- bottom line is that a 25% attrition rate is unacceptable. But let's grant the letter writer's assumption -- Dear principals of HALB, HAFTR, HANC, etc., what does a 25% attrition rate tell us about the state of modern orthodox elementary and secondary education which encourages and condones choices that lead to these abysmal statistics?"</i><br /><br />in this instance, you and the letter writer shared the same assumptions. but the assumption is *flawed*. and by presenting it as either / or, you are motzi laaz on these MO institutions.<br /><br />*if* Rabbi Willig is correct, that this reflects a selection bias, then it does not say anything of the sort about either the impact of college or about the impact of MO education.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-14751942129943358382009-10-28T13:41:14.830-04:002009-10-28T13:41:14.830-04:00"It is the writer's contention that he wo..."It is the writer's contention that he would rather the risk, again, whatever the statistical liklihood, of his child being exposed to and influenced by secular ideals than what he calls fundamentalsim."<br /><br />bull. and you should know better. he pretty clearly does not think that the risk amounts to anything in the case of his son, and that people who are ideologically prepared can thrive in such an environment and come out better for it.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-87114741359494171632009-10-28T13:36:38.108-04:002009-10-28T13:36:38.108-04:00"Unless you can point to the innacuracy you c..."Unless you can point to the innacuracy you claim I made, I see no reason to. So far you have not."<br /><br />i have, already. lo davar reh hu, mikem. this is perhaps a very good argument in favor of a strong secular education.<br /><br />you falsely state that there is a 25% chance that Rabbi Willig's son will become conservative. and you falsely imply that Rabbi Willig admits that a 25% chance exists, and yet is willing to risk it anyway. (and it was not merely not granting the assumption, but leaving the fact that you differ on this entirely that lets you falsely mischaracterize Rabbi Willig's position, and malign his son; i think you owe Rabbi Willig and his son an apology.)<br /><br />"not only do i not necessarily maintain this,", followed by your assertion that i do maintain this:<br /><br />you summarize my position in your own words, injecting various of your own assumptions of what i am saying and what constituted ideological preparation, and then assert that what you said and what i said are the same. admittedly not as bad as what you did with Rabbi Willig's statement, but pretty bad.<br /><br />for example, i gave an article by Rabbi Pinchas Rosenthal about midrashic literalism as an example of ideological preparation. he is the principal of an all-girls school. so from there, you get "co-ed environment" and "once a day Talmud class"?!<br /><br />an understanding of different approaches to science and Torah, and sophisticated ways of addressing apparent contradictions, is ONE way that a school can ideologically prepare one for the challenge. having frum role-models of teachers who have gone through this experience is another form of preparation. getting drilled into you that one CAN exist in the secular world, and that it is our religious obligation to integrate Torah and science, or Torah and being an American citizen, can feed directly into the choices one makes in college, such that it is not an either-or proposition. Meanwhile, if one feels that one is already going off the derech by going to college, what is a bit more garlic?<br /><br />(*theoretically*, knowing how to deal with members of the opposite sex, and how to maintain a platonic relationship with one, and having pas besalo in the form of a MO girlfriend or boyfriend, might be an effective counter to the *sudden availability* and draw of the same from Conservative girls on campus. just some-on-the-spot musings.)<br /><br />The preceding was all off the cuff. I don't want to really argue this in this comment section, as I have already asserted.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-74596613792845837962009-10-28T13:24:36.253-04:002009-10-28T13:24:36.253-04:00"Better to take that 25% chance of his/her be..."Better to take that 25% chance of his/her becoming an apikores than chas v'shalom risk him/her becoming a chareidi."<br /><br />It is the writer's contention that he would rather the risk, again, whatever the statistical liklihood, of his child being exposed to and influenced by secular ideals than what he calls fundamentalsim. I simply rephrased the same argument in starker terms to illustrate just how ridiculous it is, but the substantive point remains the same: The writer thinks YU/Touro are fundamentalist, and prefers the dangers of a secular environment to those institutions.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-12107206499765903892009-10-28T13:16:50.480-04:002009-10-28T13:16:50.480-04:00>>>yes, and i will continue to ignore the...>>>yes, and i will continue to ignore them, until you rewrite the post from scratch.<br /><br />Unless you can point to the innacuracy you claim I made, I see no reason to. So far you have not. <br /><br />>>> not only do i not necessarily maintain this,<br /><br />Quote from you above -- "a large part of this came from being ideologically prepared;" If ideological preparation is a necessary ingredient, is it not fair game to ask whether the typical Hebrew Academy MO education provides that ideological preparation? <br /><br />>>>but some of the quotes that you cite, and snipe at, are taken out of context, in that you don't grant the assumptions of the writer. <br /><br />That is the big innacuracy? The fact that I don't grant assumptions which I disagree with? Please. Of course I don't grant their assumptions and question them, but that's not an error, that's a statement of my opinion. If your opinion is that the typical 17 year old at U of Penn can do what R' Soloveitchik did (as one letter indicated), then I have the right to point out just how absurd and silly that argument is. <br /><br />>>>don't think you are so frum, just because you are taking the "frum" position.<br /><br />I never claimed to be frum. I do claim that my position is far more reasonable than any of the quotes I cited.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-12268432239602181182009-10-28T12:48:42.577-04:002009-10-28T12:48:42.577-04:00"He simply felt that the drashos of chazal ca..."He simply felt that the drashos of chazal can be separated from the pshat."<br /><br />let us take a concrete example. chazal say that pinchas speared kosbi and zimri with one blow. ibn ezra says that kubata means her tent, such that he first speared zimri, then went into kozbi's tent and speared kosbi.<br /><br />both cannot simultaneously be true. even if one is peshat and the other derash, they could not have historically both happened.<br /><br />so say that ibn ezra ascribes a homiletic meaning to that midrash, even though he does not explicitly say this, and there is no reason to say that he intends this rather than agreeing with Shmuel Hanagid and that that might well be injecting your own hashkafot into the text of Ibn Ezra. fine, say this.<br /><br />where did i say different, in terms of this gemara of "mah shoel". i suggested that even Chazal did not mean this, but that they are using it to make a homiletic point.<br /><br />so why get upset at me, and consider me quasi-reform, but not get upset at ibn ezra?<br /><br />this, by the way, was one example of many.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-28954279578603622932009-10-28T12:43:24.333-04:002009-10-28T12:43:24.333-04:00"Certainly, it seems that you, Josh, have the..."Certainly, it seems that you, Josh, have the ability to say that your view is correct and Chazal's was wrong. You were bold enough to venture on saying that Hashem wants us to learn philosophy by projecting such into the Rambam as an injunction for all."<br /><br />certainly, i believe that i have the ability, and perhaps obligation to say so. such is talmud torah. (and indeed, there were Geonim and Rishonim who maintained this as well. though again, i also maintain that in this instance, it is not contradicting Chazal, but rather contradicting your interpretation of Chazal. to expand on the point in the comment above, it is not Josh vs. Chazal. It is Josh's interpretation of Chazal vs. Ariella's interpretation of Chazal.)<br /><br />at the same time, i recognize that there are other hashkafot out there, and that people who maintain those hashkafot have the ability and perhaps obligation to put forth their own.<br /><br />you call it projecting onto rambam. so be it. i don't think it is, but i am not going to get into an orthogonal debate.<br /><br />"As to Ibn Ezra, let me tell you this, Josh. I have no doubt that the Ibn Ezra was a ma'amin."<br />nice insinuation.<br /><br />"He simply felt that the drashos of chazal can be separated from the pshat."<br />not only that. though that is a safe and frum interpretation of what ibn ezra does.<br /><br />"Yet, if I wish to be cholek on Ibn Ezra, I can rely on greats such as the Ramban and the Maharal."<br />yes, that is a very frum approach, that you can only be cholek on Ibn Ezra if you have upon whom to rely. ibn ezra would almost certainly frown on this approach, and would not think that it makes you a more religious individual. but this is again different hashkafot, and approaches to learning.<br /><br />R' Chaim and I have argued about this approach in the past, in terms of other areas of learning, including as it pertains to psak.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-49686154613961448342009-10-28T12:34:13.426-04:002009-10-28T12:34:13.426-04:00"I believe you have begun to resorting to ad ..."I believe you have begun to resorting to ad hominem attacks here, Josh"<br />i have not. rather, i am pointing out that in your insinuations, YOU are resorting to ad hominem attacks, or coming close to it. perhaps you are projecting.<br /><br />is this what you taught in your class in rhetoric? :)<br /><br />my POINT was that there are multiple interpretations of the gemara. you took your own interpretation of the gemara, and think that that defines Jewish belief. but that interpretation is your own. that ibn caspi, daat zekeinim, ramchal and rashi (in my reading) all say otherwise should indicate that they did not take the gemara in that way. such that the one interpretation you put forth should not be considered binding and exclusive.<br /><br />please explain to me how that is ad hominem.<br /><br />thanks,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-52637033074859214812009-10-28T12:27:51.163-04:002009-10-28T12:27:51.163-04:00"that does not mean that the meaning that YOU..."that does not mean that the meaning that YOU happen to choose to derive from it is the ONLY possible meaning to derive, such that this is exclusively what Hashem wants of us."<br /><br />I believe you have begun to resorting to ad hominem attacks here, Josh, a clear sign that you have no real logical leg to stand on. This smacks of desperation: "It all boils down to who is the "YOU" in question. Certainly, it seems that you, Josh, have the ability to say that your view is correct and Chazal's was wrong. You were bold enough to venture on saying that Hashem wants us to learn philosophy by projecting such into the Rambam as an injunction for all.<br /><br />As to Ibn Ezra, let me tell you this, Josh. I have no doubt that the Ibn Ezra was a ma'amin. He simply felt that the drashos of chazal can be separated from the pshat. I happen to study pshat, which includes the commentaries by Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Radak, and Rashbam. They are all far greater than I,and I happily concede that. Yet, if I wish to be cholek on Ibn Ezra, I can rely on greats such as the Ramban and the Maharal. They, too, were far greater than I, and far great than you.<br />As I said, I spoke out of what I know of Reform interpretation. I reviewed a book for JPS by a "rabbi" who pointed out at every turn where the Jews were clever enough to construct a history that has some correlation to archeology, though, he takes it as a given that Torah is no more divine than Homer's history of the Trojan wars. That is what I mean when I say Reform. Bringing up what some may have fallen out from study from the Middle Ages is irrelevant.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-42450381696451714512009-10-28T12:26:05.507-04:002009-10-28T12:26:05.507-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-46671859265732296952009-10-28T12:16:43.013-04:002009-10-28T12:16:43.013-04:00"Likewise, those of us who believe in Torah m..."Likewise, those of us who believe in Torah min Shamayim also believe in the mesorah of Torah sheBa'al Peh. It follows that what is recorded in the Gemara (as well as Midrash) is meaningful."<br /><br />careful, because you may be insinuating that i (or ibn ezra in the general case, or ibn caspi) do not believe in Torah min hashamayim.<br /><br />meaningful, sure. but that does not mean that one must come away from the gemara and the pasuk thinking that this is the *only* thing Hashem requires of us. it is used in a derasha cited by rashi to show that since Hashem wants this from US, it is something Hashem cannot provide, such that yiras shamayim is in our hands. and it is used in similar narrow scope to make an important homiletic point about relative difficulty. <br /><br />that does not mean that the meaning that YOU happen to choose to derive from it is the ONLY possible meaning to derive, such that this is exclusively what Hashem wants of us.<br /><br />Ibn Caspi, and Ramchal, and Rashi, and Daat Zekeinim don't assert that Hashem only wants yiras shamayim from us, to the exclusion of all else. and they all believed in Torah min hashamayim.<br /><br />also, as i noted in a comment about, see Shmuel Hanagid's position that one is permitted to argue on the aggada found in the gemara, because it is NOT mipi hagvurah, but was the personal opinion and innovation of the author of the statement.<br /><br />"but without a respect for the mesorah, this religion becomes the farce that the Reform have made of it. I've read Torah interpretations from a Reform view, so I am speaking of something I have checked into."<br />this may be so. however, you would be surprised at how many things you can find in the frum medieval meforshim which certain chareidim would assert is only a Reform view, rather than something which is part of our tradition. this is remaking the past in our own image, and asserting that whatever we deem out of bounds is "Reform."<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-72273317872048863602009-10-28T12:08:18.154-04:002009-10-28T12:08:18.154-04:00"Your qualms with the study are irrelevant to..."Your qualms with the study are irrelevant to any of the quotes I cite in my post, which you basically ignore."<br /><br />yes, and i will continue to ignore them, until you rewrite the post from scratch.<br /><br />but some of the quotes that you cite, and snipe at, are taken out of context, in that you don't grant the assumptions of the writer. suggesting that Rabbi Willig is saying that it is better to risk 25% of becoming an apikores that being brainwashed to be more shomer mitzvos not only misrepresents his point (how about the concern that one will come out thinking that it is assur to learn philosophy, or that a white shirt is fundamental jewish practice?), but is a snipe based on the idea that there is indeed, and that he admits that there is indeed, a 25% chance of becoming an apikores.<br /><br />however, you have made this error in the past, of attributing to me positions that i never maintained. i don't necessarily agree with all of the letter writers there. so?<br /><br />"Nor have you explained to us how a period of talmud once a day in a coed environment prepares one adequetly for the immense challenges to one's belief that secular college, esp. away from home, can present."<br />here you are, making it about the broad issues. not only do i not necessarily maintain this, i don't feel like engaging the broader issues.<br /><br />you want an idea of how one could maintain this? how about that there is a very strong Jewish community in a place such as Brandeis, Columbia, and NYU (recall, you were making insinuations about Brandeis). IIUC, there is a Jewish majority at Brandeis. And I know many frum people who went to these institutions and did not all of a sudden become Conservative, or for that matter, any less frum. can one imagine a scenario in which it could happen? sure, but that does not mean that it does happen, or happen with any regularity.<br /><br />and insisting that it does happen is really being motzi laaz on a whole group of people. don't think you are so frum, just because you are taking the "frum" position.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-15292228190587222992009-10-28T11:56:27.045-04:002009-10-28T11:56:27.045-04:00"Josh, please point to exact line in the post..."Josh, please point to exact line in the post that you think is innaccurate and I will consider changing it."<br />it is the overall post, which assumes that there is a 25% chance and danger of becoming Conservative when one sends an Orthodox kid to a secular college. indeed, the survey says none of this, and indeed does not even indicate a change in hashkafah and belief, but quite likely simply a different way of self-identifying.<br /><br />but if you want a concrete example, how about:<br />"Better to take that 25% chance of his/her becoming an apikores than chas v'shalom risk him/her becoming a chareidi."<br /><br />however, changing one or two lines would not be sufficient. the whole post is unfounded, and should be rewritten from scratch! unfortunately, perhaps through some deficiency in me, i am unable to make it clear to you *why* what you wrote is entirely unfounded.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-59645337513539462562009-10-28T11:20:26.499-04:002009-10-28T11:20:26.499-04:00This really is off on a tangent from the post, tho...This really is off on a tangent from the post, though it does stem from one of my comments, so what rbc said"Really? Have you considered that you are misreading? Can you point to a single source that reads it like you - counter to the Talmud, Midrashim etc. ? The second passuk is the consequence of the first one, not a sequential continuation. Otherwise the Gemara's discussion is absurd, and its answers ridiculous."<br /><br />is a key point. Josh, I am sure that you would have read As a Driven Leaf, the fictionalized account of Elisha ben Avuya. (It's safe for you to read, as no one would consider it yeshivish propaganda.) Now I'm doing this from memory of a book I've read over 20 years ago, but I recall a climactic point was his realization that even geometry rests on axioms that have to be accepted because they cannot be proven. This is a crisis of faith for him, for he thought he was following the road of rationality where everything has a proof.<br /><br />Likewise, those of us who believe in Torah min Shamayim also believe in the mesorah of Torah sheBa'al Peh. It follows that what is recorded in the Gemara (as well as Midrash) is meaningful. A failure on our part to recognize the meaning does not reflect on the actual truth but on a deficiency in our own understanding. I take that as axiomatic.<br /><br />As I have commented on your own blog, there may be many versions of pshat, but that does still not negate the validity of drash (not to mention, remez and sod). Yes, there can be a diversity of opinions on pshat; after all, 70 panim laTorah -- and that is only the panim without the pnimiyus -- but without a respect for the mesorah, this religion becomes the farce that the Reform have made of it. I've read Torah interpretations from a Reform view, so I am speaking of something I have checked into.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-91644960566734429592009-10-28T10:17:37.329-04:002009-10-28T10:17:37.329-04:00>>>If this post, with its inaccuracies, i...>>>If this post, with its inaccuracies, is used as propaganda in this way,<br /><br />Josh, please point to exact line in the post that you think is innaccurate and I will consider changing it. Your qualms with the study are irrelevant to any of the quotes I cite in my post, which you basically ignore. Nor do you make any effort to explain or justify ignoring the negative effect of peer pressure and authority figures as role models. Your description of those who attend college as being on some quest to discover great things about life simply does not accord with reality, as anyone who speaks with the average MO future investment banker, lawyer, or doctor can attest to. Nor have you explained to us how a period of talmud once a day in a coed environment prepares one adequetly for the immense challenges to one's belief that secular college, esp. away from home, can present. In short, you nitpick in a statistic while ignoring the major argument at hand. It's like someone who spends hours arguing about the exact % of people killed by smoking and then asks whether we should remove the surgeon general's warning label from the cigarette boxes, completly missing the point at hand -- whatever the statistic is, ignoring the danger can prove fatal.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.com