Aug 31, 2007 4:35 PM
Christ-Currents: When talking to Goyim, it’s okay to sound Reform_
...or 'Cross Currents is now bashing… Cross Currents!'
Is this a first? Cross Currents has a post from Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein which essentially bashes a previous post from Eytan Kobre. What’s all the fuss about?
Basically, Kobre, who usually pens fairly annoying articles, criticized both Rabbi Lamm and (Rabbi) Shmuely Boteach’s reactions to the Noah Feldman affair, for being way too apologetic about why de'oraysah you don’t save a goy on shabbos, and not representing Torah truthfully.
RYA responded by quoting from some Gadol who wrote an apologetic response to Napolean on the topic of intermarriage, showing that when it comes to talking to goyim, you are allowed to sound a shtickle Reform, if it’s good for the Jews, and that Kobre should have the sechel not to attack Lamm in public on this.
The really sad thing is that they’re probably not even arguing about the morality (or lack thereof) in the Halachot of saving a Goy on Shabbos, but rather they’re just arguing about whether to be honest about it on a blog.
The ansewer though is poshut, as this CC commenter wrote:
Rabbosai—
I’ve been holding back for weeks and weeks and now R’ Eytan and his commentators have pushed me just too far!
The Mishna at hand was the source of my first serious religious crisis. It happened over 20 years ago during my first year of formal Torah learning. I was 23. At that time I was a grand philosopher in the making; searcher of cross-cultural wisdoms; student of Comparative Religion; dabbler into Chassidic truth. It was during the dark ages of pre-Artscroll. In fact there was nary a reliable English translation available, besides the fact that many Gdoilim were discouraging ANY translations. “Learn it inside” was the mantra.
Then I bumped into that Mishna.
I was profoundly let down; wildly determined to get to the bottom of it. “Now how in the world would all those nice frummies justify THIS,” I could hear my Yetzer HaRa snickering while my Neshama was plunging ever deeper into despair. I really wanted to believe that the imagery of the goy stuck under the rubble pleading for me to help him by shifting around a few rocks with me sighing “sorry, it’s Shabbos” was just not pshat. But the more I checked it out, the worse it got!
Until.
The next Shabbos I was a guest of a certain Chassidic figure. As we were walking together after the meal, I sprang it on him. I let him know how deeply concerned I am to hear to full truth and nothing but. He turned to me, with scathing love [XGH: scathing love? WTF is scathing love?], and said very curtly: “If you only knew the kedusha of Shabbos! If you only knew you wouldn’t ask. For it’s not about evaluating one type of life or another. It’s ALL about Shabbos.!
SHAAAAAAAbbos!
The question is whether there’s any reason here to justify desecrating the holy Shabbos, with the conclusion being that for a Jew there is, since the likelyhood is great that he’ll be around next week to keep another Shabbos. If so, than Shabbos gains.
SHAAABBOS!
That’s all we’re concerned for. The non-Jew has nothing to contribute to holy Shabbos and therefore it’s simply not an option to desecrate Shabbos for saving him.”
As I was absorbing this, he looked deeply into my eyes and then added: “You should know that G-d and only G-d decides when someone should die. We’re not talking here about playing G-d to decide who should live or not. Rather, our only concern is whether there’s a Mitzvah to be God's messenger. In the case of Shabbos, that Mitzvah only pertains to Jews. Unless, of course, there’s a danger that NOT saving the goy will endanger other Jews. If that was the case, then Shabbos would truly suffer!
See, this Halachah is not anti goy at all! Rather it’s just Pro-Shabbos. Now go tell that to the goyim, I’m sure they’ll understand.
Aug 30, 2007 12:47 PM
Belovski Bashes Kiruv on Cross Currents_
Finally, a worthwhile Cross Currents post. Rabbi Harvey Belovski points out the issues with the Kiruv movement, bemoaning the fact that all too often, BTs are turned into religious clones, forced to drop all their previous friends and interests, and ultimately this turns out for the bad. He writes very 'gently', but if you read between he lines, his criticisms are actually quite sharfe. As he writes:
"Finally, might an outreach professional who thinks that it is his or her mission to turn an eclectic group of non-observant Jews into a bunch of religious clones be in the wrong job?"
Who is this Rabbi Belovsky? He is the Rabbi of Golders Green Shul in London, England. He even has a blog, 'Belogski'. Rabbis with blogs! Whatever next?! Also, why does it seem to always be the Brits who say it like it is?
Somewhat ironically, I live in a bit of a kiruv community, with BTs and Kiruv all over the place. The big question of course is does kiruv actually improve these people's lives? It's not so clear to me that it always does. Of course the BTs themselves will for the most part claim to be happier (with a few noteable exceptions), but are they really happier? After all, if you speak to people in a cult they will also claim to be happier, but from the outside looking in you can clearly see this is not the case.
I guess it ultimately hinges on the question of whether OJ is true or not. If it is true, then whether they are really happier or not is less relevant, since the most important thing is for them to be OJ. However if OJ is not true, then I suppose it might be immoral to convince someone to take on a more restrictive lifestyle.
Seeing as no one can prove for sure that OJ is true, does that make Kiruv immoral? I guess it depends. If you are a Kiruv worker who tells your kiruv projects that of course you can't prove Judaism is true, but it's a fulfilling lifestyle etc etc, and they are still interested, then caveat emptor applies. However if you 'prove' to them that OJ is true, then that would seem to be immoral. I suppose you could still argue that caveat emptor applies, and nobody is forcing anyone or using any real brain washing techniques. But still, potential BTs are often emotionally and intellectually vulnerable, and it would be a mistake to take advantage of that.
None of this is intended as a criticism of my local kiruv professionals, who by and large seem to be a very well balanced, hardworking and decent bunch of individuals. Still, I'm waiting for the day when they can be mekarev me! Maybe they've given up hope.
Aug 29, 2007 2:31 AM
A PoMo Rosh Yeshivah? Too Late_
I can't believe I missed this:
Rabbi Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (also called Rabbi Shagar) passed away in June.
Since 1996, Shagar served as head of Siach Yitzchak yeshiva. Shagar was considered one of the most important Orthodox Jewish philosophers of our time, and one of the few rabbis who dealt with the significance of the post-modern era.
He had a penchant for religious identification with post-modernism on the assumption that breaking with accepted ideologies (which post-modernism represents) enables greater freedom to achieve a higher spiritual level and a mystical experience.
Shagar encouraged his students to study not only the Gemara and Jewish law, as is customary in yeshivas, but also Hasidism, especially the writings of some of the first leaders of the Hasidic Movement, such as Rabbi Nahman of Breslau. He saw Hasidism as the reflection of Jewish grappling with questions regarding the soul, which are characteristic of the post-ideological period.
He himself dealt with general philosophy and encouraged his students, especially those who were closer to him, to study humanities such as philosophy and the theater. His yeshiva offered workshops in movement, creative writing and even meditation, in addition to the routine religious studies.
Aug 28, 2007 10:03 PM
_It seems like rationalism is a dead end, and if you insist on being rational, you might as well chuck the Torah out of the window, while eating a cheeseburger in McDonalds on Yom Kippur. Without saying a brachah.
So what to do?
We could insist on staying rational, and take a cold objective and purely factual approach to everything. That would have the advantage of keeping us closest to the 'truth', but people also have emotions and spiritual drives, it's not a given that being purely rational about everything is necessarily the best way to be. Especially if you are OJ.
I think we have two options:
1. Go PoMo
2. Get Mystical
They each have their pros and cons. So let's start with PoMo.
PoMo means different things to different people. In it's crudest (and silliest) sense, it means that there is no objective truth. Of course this is dumb because (a) Proven science is about as objectively true as you can get, and if that's not true enough then you might as well forget it, and (b) If nothing is true then PoMo isn't true either.
I'm going to call the above view 'Extreme PoMo', and I'm going to attempt to stay away from it, both because it's dumb, and also because Orthodox Judaism does believe in Objective Truth, so using PoMo to support OJ is a Stira Minay Ubay.
So where to start? Shall we consult the king of PoMo, AddeRabbi? Maybe. In the meantime, here is a comment from EvanstonJew, PoMo heir apparent:
"The phenomenological location of God whether out there, up there, inside, abstract form, infinite point, the Hegelian absolute, the gilui hashechina of Being or as a character in a book is not the most pressing question in the 21st century. Where we locate God is less important than what we expect of him, project onto him and how He organizes our life as mediated by Torah. Ultimately history will judge Orthodoxy by its daily life and culture, and not by their failure to understand the fallacy in the argument from design."
Aug 28, 2007 5:20 PM
Let’s get philosophical, philosophical_
_EvanstonJew left a cracker of a comment here yesterday. Some of it was PoMo nonsense, for which EJ deserves to get slapped, but the rest of it was pretty interesting. OK folks, time to put away those powdered wigs and beauty spots and let’s get 21st century!
[Note: Lightly edited for grammar and style]
We are dealing with practical reason not metaphysics. In deciding how to live, it is out of place to ask ‘But is it true?’ Most people would first settle the practical issue on the basis of reasons for or against, and leave the metaphysics to metaphysicians.
Now since you whole blog hangs on doing metaphysics, which is the least interesting question about Orthodoxy, I’ll repeat what I and S. said:
1) Yes we know the arguments [for the ‘truth’ of God and religion] fail. To repeat the same point which has been obvious since Hume, day in and day out, year in and year out is an argument for the existence of inner demons, but is not an issue worth debating.
Ha! RJM take note – ‘has been obvious since Hume’ ! And I don’t believe in (inner) demons.
2) The overwhelming majority of American philosophers are not naïve realists…not Quine, not Davidson, not Putnam, not even Dennet. And of course Rorty denies outright the correspondence theory of truth that you accept. You simply cannot use terms like fact, objective, truth as if they were non problematic .Do you KNOW that anyone besides you has a mind, is conscious? Prove it. No one has ever refuted skepticism about other minds. Life goes on and we talk to each other without KNOWING we are not talking to an automaton.
Feh. This is just PoMo nonsense. Just because I can’t prove I’m not a brain in a jar doesn’t make the truth of OJ an irrelevant question, or the word ‘truth’ have no meaning.
3) European/ Continental philosophy would go a step further. They would darshan some aspect of Torah , let’s say the fact that it is heteronymous, compare it to Christianity or paganism, and let’s say they think heteronomy is better, will conclude by saying that this is the truth in Judaism. The truth in Judaism is compatible with there being no fact of the matter to TMS or God’s existence. A good example of this derech is Levinas who is all the rage these days, but many others as well.
So modern day philosophers have redefined ‘truth’ to be something more like ‘meaning’ or value ? Feh
Your metaphysics finds no echo in the world of philosophy of today. Many if not most philosophers are atheists. Some like Putnam are Orthodox Jews. Most think theism is irrelevant to the important issues that are embedded in religion.
Fine. But whether OJ is true or not (in the normal sense of the word ‘true’) is indeed important to the vast majority of OJs, and to pretend it isn’t important just because modern day atheistic philosophers have redefined it is quite frankly rather silly. And I bet you wouldn’t even be playing these games if not for the fact that you want to believe in religion even though it doesn’t look very true. And who cares what modern atheist philosophers think anyway? Everyone I know cares whether OJ is true or not. That’s poshut.
Aug 27, 2007 12:41 PM
Evanston Jew doesn’t comment much. But when he does, it’s usually quite thoughtful, even radical sometimes. So, I was rather surprised to see the followingRJM style comment from him:
You post is so 18th century it's pathetic. In the old days it was thought if religion were shown to be irrational or imaginary projections (Feuerbach, Marx etc.) the ideology would be exposed and the religion would fall away. Today the cynical view is dominant, “nobody really knows anything positive, and everybody is totally biased and intellectually dishonest." As you say in your point 7…Orthodox “pretend to be believers when really they are full of doubts."
Where the ideological distortion occurs today is in the failure to examine what fears and fantasies are being covered over by the position of doing mitvoth without believing.
You think you are showing those with emunah peshuta to be dupes, when you are the one in the grip of a naive simplicity in thinking stylish cynicism offers some protection against self-delusion. There is no safe neutral above it all position from which to condescend to your neighbors.
Evanstonjew
I’m not sure quite what he’s saying, and maybe he is being more radical than I realize. But let’s dissect his comment and see where we get:
“You post is so 18th century it's pathetic.”
This is the standard jibe of RJM and Chardal, that the skeptics are stuck in the 18th century. I assume they mean because in the 18th century people realized that religion wasn’t true, so if you realize that today, then you’re stuck in the past. Rather silly. Or maybe they mean that in the 21st century people now realize that religion is true after all? I must have missed that.
Or more likely, they are trying to tap into Post Modernism, and are claiming that nothing is really true. Well, when it comes to religion they are probably right, but even if they want to claim that epistemologically they are correct, that’s hardly an Orthodox position! Orthodoxy believes Orthodoxy is true.
Also, if I’m stuck in the 18th century, aren’t they stuck in like the13th century BCE? Or maybe that’s the intended insult: I’m only 18th century, but they’re so awesome they’re 13the Century BCE! Could be.
“Where the ideological distortion occurs today is in the failure to examine what fears and fantasies are being covered over by the position of doing mitvoth without believing.”
Huh? Say what? What’s your point? That I have fears and fantasies and therefore I continue to keep the Mitzvot? OK, for arguments sake let’s say I do. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
“You think you are showing those with emunah peshuta to be dupes, when you are the one in the grip of a naive simplicity in thinking stylish cynicism offers some protection against self-delusion. There is no safe neutral above it all position from which to condescend to your neighbors.”
OK, so he is going PoMo, I thought so. Of course from my subjective POV it would be hard for me to ‘prove’ that I’m sensible. But taking Evanston’s ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion would result in us all being no different than the certified lunatics. It would also invalidate Science, Courts of Law and pretty much all rational discourse.
Fortunately, the world doesn’t work like that. It doesn’t even work like that for Evanston, it’s only when it comes to religion that all of a sudden people come up with these bizarre and ludicrous worldviews, and only then because that’s the only way they can justify their absurd beliefs. It’s really quite pathetic.
How do I know that fundamentalists are dupes? Because I have examined the evidence critically and objectively, and its bleedin obvious. How am I any different from RJM? After all, he likewise claims to have examined all the evidence critically and objectively and has come to the exact opposite conclusion! And my answer is, very simple. The statistics are on my side.
Here are the statistics (in case you forgot). All of these are simple facts, and RJM has already agreed to these.
Hundreds (or even thousands) of different religions (and sub sects and sub-sub sects), all with many contradictory ideas about God and revelation.
Major disagreement between most of these sects, and no process for gaining agreement.
Highly subjective arguments from all sects, which are 99% of the time entirely unconvincing to all members of other sects.
No one has any actual scientific or otherwise solid evidence for the truth of their religion.
The most significantly religious sects (e.g. Chareidim) have a clear tendency to ignore obvious evidence, e.g. ancient earth. (even RJM agrees with this!)
99% of all strongly religious people stick with their religion of birth
In the rare cases when someone does change religion, after an investigation, there is no consistent movement to one religion or another. People go every which way, further proving that this is all a matter of personal taste, and no one religion has particularly convincing arguments.
So, in summary: Religious arguments have global disagreement, an extremely high degree of bias and subjectivity, and no good evidence. Is it any wonder I’m skeptical!?
18th century indeed.
Aug 27, 2007 12:41 PM
A Demon Haunted Chazal: Why Rationalist Orthodoxy is a dead end_
_Chazal talked a lot about ‘sheidim’. People typically translate ‘sheidim’ as ‘demons’, but it might not be 100% accurate, hard to say of course. Personally I always pictured Sheidim as Gremlins, like in the movie.
Chazal even give a recipe for how to see a demon:
"He who wishes to see a demon should take the after-birth of a black she-cat, the offspring of a black she-cat, the first-born of a first-born, roast it in the fire, pulverize it, then fill his eyes with it, and he will see a demon. He must pour the powder into an iron tube and seal it with an iron signet, lest he come to harm."
Some people claim that Chazal were speaking in allegories, or riddles. Could be, but more likely they actually believed in it. After all, from an MO perspective, we say that Chazal believed in the Science of their times, so why not the demonology too? Demons were a pretty big deal in Babylon.
I found it funny that on a recent thread on Hirhurims some of the more ‘rational’ commenters (i.e. irrational fundamentalists suffering from the additional delusion that they are in fact rational) were going nuts about this. One guy even wrote:
“What is a demon? Has any one here ever seen a demon? No. There is no such thing. Chazal spoke in allegories to teach ideas.”
To which the obvious response is: ‘What is a God? Has any one here ever seen a God? No. There is no such thing. Chazal spoke in allegories to teach ideas’.
Defending demons, one guy had this to say:
“You have to first obtain a young she-cat, and then observe her during her first confinement, and then only if her first-born kitten is a black she-cat, you have to observe that one in turn during her first confinement, and only if her first-born kitten is a black she-cat are you able to proceed.
That is not a trivial engagement.
It is not likely that such a feat was carried out more often than was le-havdil the ashes of the red heifer.
Would any of those who are certain that the recipe of Chazal represents superstition dare suggest the same about the ashes of the red heifer?”
And that’s exactly the problem. You can’t be rational and frum, it’s a stirah minai ubayh. ‘OK’ some people say, ‘But at least we should believe in the minimal number of irrational things, and not believe in every crazy story’. True, the less stupidity you believe in the better (from a rational POV), can’t argue with that. Even better is presumably to believe in no stupidity at all.
A Rabbi I know, who is a phd, an expert on Rambam and an extremely well educated fellow, says rational Orthodoxy is a dead end. If you want to maintain any sense of religiosity you have to go mystical / irrational.
I don’t think he believes in demons though.
Aug 26, 2007 1:13 AM
Are Orthodox Jews not intellectually honest?_
It seems that OJs are not intellectually honest. If they were honest, they would study comparative religion (and similar) from a rational objective standpoint, to determine the real emmes. But of course they don’t, and in fact, they can’t.
Instead, like every other fundamentalist religious group, they indulge in the following dishonest behaviors:
Inventing new peshatim to ‘reconcile’ contradictions to reality
Refuse to engage skeptics in discussion due to ‘fealty to Halachah’
Don’t let themselves think ‘skeptical’ thoughts
Fight any ‘doubts’ they have
Ignore scholarship which would ‘undermine’ their faith
Resort to highly improbable scenarios to answer questions
Pretend to be believers when really they are full of doubts
Use loaded and biased terminology to assuage their fears e.g. ‘skeptics spew their kefirah’ but believers ‘enhance their faith’
Don’t ever seriously consider that they may be completely wrong
Won’t allow themselves to come to anti-religious conclusions
No doubt some OJ (FFB!) commenters will insist that they have rationally and objectively studied all the major religions in depth, and have come to the objective conclusion that their religion is the one true religion, and if they hadn’t discovered that they would certainly have given it up. Sure, that’s a credible claim.
And then said commenters will go on to produce highly biased and subjective arguments ‘proving’ that their religion is the one true religion, even though these arguments are entirely unconvincing to anyone not already convinced. And to top off this incredible intellectual dishonesty, they will then claim that anyone not convinced by these arguments is themselves intellectually dishonest, ignorant of the sources, and not worth debating with! Unbelievable.
I should say though, in their defense, that very few OJs (with a few notable exceptions) can be blamed for this behavior. It is scientifically true beyond a shadow of doubt that when it comes to religion, people will believe anything. Why this is so is a more complicated question for a later date, but it is a fact. So, we cannot really blame OJs (or any other fundamentalist group) for believing what they believe. They are almost all tinokot shenishbeuh.
Of course the bigger question is this: Is it so wrong to be intellectually dishonest? I’m not sure of the answer to that. I could hear someone say as follows:
‘Look, we all agree that it doesn’t look very true. And of course I’m bound by Halachah to believe in it anyway. However, we have been custodians of this faith for thousands of years, and we have an impressive track record (relative to other religions at least). Could be it’s not true, but in the meantime I’m going to go on promoting my faith in the best way I know how, and try to answer the questions in the best way possible.’
I wouldn’t usually let someone get away with such bs, but what’s the alternative? Skeptical nihilism? Sigh. The world is just nuts. Could God really have wanted this? Here is my take on the options:
Option 1: Judaism is the one true religion.
Highly unlikely given current evidence (but of course it could be true)
Option 2: Another religion is the one true religion.
Also highly unlikely.
Option 3: God exists but all religion is man made
Could be I guess. But why would God set us up like that? Then again, according to option 1, why would God setup the other 5.9 billion goyim like that? Maybe God is running some kind of experiment. But why would a good God do that? You can’t ask questions of God. Feh.
Option 4: God doesn’t exist.
Could be. But how does anything exist? We don’t know. Nu, you don’t die from a kashyeh. But if God doesn't exist, why bother with anything? Eh.
Conclusion
When it comes to religious beliefs, nobody really knows anything positive, and everybody is totally biased and intellectually dishonest. On the other hand, there’s not much of an alternative. Or rather there is, but it has possibly very bad consequences for humanity, so very few people like that alternative, except for some vocal skeptics who seem to be okay with it, but it's hard to tell if they really are, or if the rest of the world would be. Sigh.
--
Aug 25, 2007 11:11 PM
Away Me Blow That Texts Sacred Ancient_
Guest post by u_4_amgine
(You have to read this first)
I love the Tanakh. I love its resonating poetry. I love the political intrigue in its stories, its many colorful characters, the way it brings ancient stories to life, the way it attempts to solve social issues. I love how morally complicated it is. I love that it's a demanding read at times, but also endlessly rewarding. There are even some passages that I know by heart (and some that I wish that I knew).
But this wasn't always so. Before I discovered Torah Shebaal Peh and the Meforshim, the Tanakh had me completely bewildered. I couldn't understand why God is seemingly depicted behaving like a brute, an out-of-control schizophrenic, creating flawed humans, testing them, and them smiting them for failing absurd tests. God seemed so unjust, so petty, at times needlessly cruel and vengeful, punishing innocent children for the misdeeds of their parents; condemning unoffending people for the sins of others. I wondered why God's ideas of social justice were so far behind the values of equality and justice hard-won only in the last century. How can God be depicted as such a racist and a misogynist? Why is God so obsessed with animal sacrifices? Why are there so many duplicated passages? And why so many contradictions? Surely the Redactor could have done a better job editing! And finally, how could God get so many things wrong in so many fields: geography, biology, geology, genetics, chemistry, zoology, astronomy, and almost any other scientific field.
All this confusion lifted when it finally clicked: God did not dictate the Torah to be read simplistically, like a child’s fairy tale. The Torah was not God's effort to communicate His ideas to us mortals without any further explanation. The Torah was designed to be accompanied by the Torah Shebaal Peh, conveyed to us by the ancient Sages and Meforshim. Once I started viewing the Tanakh through the lens of Torah ShebaalPeh, it all made perfect sense.
Now I take real pleasure in reading a book that is thousands of years old, and I marvel at how I can read it in the original language used by those ancient people who first heard it. I enjoy reading how thousands of years ago, these people grappled with the same moral and philosophical questions humankind still grapples with today. I'm amazed to be able to trace a fundamental sense of morality which we Jews share, now in the 21st century, and in the time before years were counted. With my new belief in its divinity, the Tanakh holds considerable gravity and importance to me, and it has stood the test of time. It is truly a Divine masterpiece.
Aug 24, 2007 3:13 PM
The Most Important Question In The World_
I just want to make something clear:
Although we have spent much time debating whether Judaism is true, I don’t think that’s really the most important question. Judaism is (or can be) a good, moral, lifestyle, and if God exists, even if Torah is man made, I can’t see that God would care too much that you wasted time being Jewish. Conversely, if Judaism IS indeed true but you thought it wasn’t, but basically were a good person, I can’t really see an omni benevolent God burning you in hell for not shaking a lulav.
However, the question of God’s existence is the key. If God exists, then presumably you should make an effort to be good, to get an eternal after life. (True, God could exist and there could be no afterlife, but that seems unlikely, since this world is so unfair, how could a good God do this to us?) If God doesn’t exist, then it really doesn’t matter what you do. Sure, you should probably basically make an effort to not do anything illegal or horribly immoral, but after you cover the basics, that’s about it. The rest of the time should be spent enjoying yourself.
I personally feel this question to be very practical and very significant. Should I spend my day trying to do the right thing? Or should I not bother? And if God really wants us to do the right thing, wouldn’t he make it more obvious what that is? And since it isn’t at all obvious, does that mean He doesn’t really exist?
And while we’re on the subject, the fact that this world can be so incredibly cruel and unfair, makes me desperately want to believe in a God and an afterlife. It also makes me think that there is indeed something wrong with atheists. I mean, how can atheists so blithely accept such an incredibly cruel and horribly worldview? Yes, I know they’ll argue that’s just the reality, it's not their fault. But to even be comfortable accepting such a reality strikes me as a flaw in their morality.
Aug 24, 2007 12:06 PM
Your belief system will inevitably fail!_
A play in one act.
MOblogger: Your belief system is untenable. It will inevitably fail!
UOblogger: No, your belief system is untenable, it will inevitably fail!
Skepticblogger: Both of yous belief systems are untenable, they will inevitably fail!
Agnosticblogger: Yours too!
Ironically, this isn't a joke. I have actually seen each one of these being seriously argued. Heck, I've even argued a few of these myself. So who is correct? If I could tell you that, I'd be a very rich man.
Aug 24, 2007 12:06 PM
IMPORTANT: Science & Torah, I changed my mind_
One of the hallmarks of this blog, as compared to some other blogs I could mention, is that this blog tries to be emmes. I try my hardest to maintain an open minded, objective and honest stance towards anything and everything. Whilst it’s almost impossible to get other, rather aloof or pedantic bloggers to ever admit they were wrong, you won’t find that with me. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it to it, quite cheerfully and happily. In fact, nothing makes me happier than when I’m proven wrong! Except possibly when I’m proven right.
So, in that spirit, I shall confess to you all today that I am probably wrong on a certain point. I have argued on multiple occasions over the past few months against the Science and Torah reconciliaters, virtually taking up Rabbi Dovid Kornreich’s position, that once you admit that Chazal were wrong in Science, there’s really no reason to assume that they were right in anything else.
However, this is somewhat wrong headed. Whilst this is rationally true, in reality, there is denying that there is a large class of MO and even LW UO people who are quite happy believing this. Does it make any sense? Of course not. But we all know that when it comes to religion people will believe in all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. I mean, just look at Mormons, or Moslems. Or Chareidim.
And, in the same way that an FKM can believe in no evolution, and a 6,000 year old earth, likewise a Y Aharon or a charliehall has no problem in passionately believing in God and TMS and the Mesorah, all the while knowing that Chazal got Science wrong. Does it make sense? No! Is it consistent? No! Is it rational? No! But it’s reality.
Again, when it comes to religion, people will believe anything. Literally anything. So ultimately I have to admit, the Science and Torah reconciliation stuff is NOT necessarily a threat to religion.
Of course to a Chareidi, who has never considered such concepts, it can be a shock to the system, and maybe even could cause Emunah Doubts. And of course to a truly honest and rational person, there will be doubts anyway. But there is certainly a large class of MO and even LW UO types who are happy to have irrational faith, and are happy to believe in TMS and God and whatever, all the while accepting Science.
RDK (and some skeptics too) might argue that even though this seems to be the case now, over time the faith of these people will erode, as they realize how untenable their position is. Maybe so, maybe not, it’s hard to tell. I hear equal but opposite arguments from the likes of charliehall & sumdumju, namely that the belief of the Chareidim is so contrary to the evidence that it can’t possibly last. Maybe so, maybe not. Religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous, have clearly shown themselves to be impervious to reason. And these counter opinions from RDK, the skeptics, charliehall & sumdumju are all so much wishful thinking.
Overall, you might argue that there has been a gradual shift since the enlightenment away from religious beliefs and superstition, towards rationality and logic. But then the last 20 years has seen a significant revival in fundamentalism, and other new age nonsense. Is this the start of a new era? Or the last dying gasp of religion? Hard to say. But either way, I will concede that the Science and Torah reconciliation books are not necessarily dangerous to anyone’s faith. It totally depends on who you are. Now that I write this out, I guess it's kinda obvious really.
Aug 24, 2007 9:10 AM
Skeptical Gedolim, do they exist?_
I have long maintained that there MUST be skeptics amongst the ranks of the Gedolim. After all, people are people, so why should it be, that everyone should have perfect faith so absolutely. There just must be Gedolim, even contemporary Gedolim, who doubt TMS and even the existence of God. I mean, there’s no proof for these things, and Gedolim aren’t stupid. Also, the average person with doubts can take solace in the Gedolim. But if you are a Godol yourself, and you realize you have doubts, then who is going to help you!
So which Gedolim are really skeptics? Looking back over recent times, it seems that the Sreidei Eish suffered from doubt. But then again, he had a hard personal life and survived the war, so you can’t really blame him. There are various stories about the Kotzker Rebbe, but they are hard co verify, plus he may have suffered from mental illness.
R Saul Lieberman might be an example. He was hailed as a major Godol in his youth, but then went skeptical later. You could also include R Louis Jacobs, R Mordechai Kaplan, R AJ Heschel and similar, but most people would probably argue that these were just regular Rabbis, and not major Gedolim and maybe ever were always a bit skeptical(though I would beg to differ).
Someone recently posted a story about a contemporary Godol (I wish I could remember who), who was asked what if he dies and finds out TMS isn’t true, and he replied ‘Well, I will have lived a fulfilling and meaningful life’. This story is amazing, because you would have expected the response to be ‘What kind of question is that you kofer!’.
Since it’s obvious that yidden are not genetically different from regular people (at least I assume that’s obvious), maybe we can also use some examples from the goyyim.
In this recent article in Time magazine, we learn that Mother Teresa was beset by doubts, as revealed by the recent publication of many of her private letters:
Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. She is acutely aware of the discrepancy between her inner state and her public demeanor. "The smile," she writes, is "a mask" or "a cloak that covers everything." Similarly, she wonders whether she is engaged in verbal deception. "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'"
Also, I have heard quite a few anecdotal stories of Rabbanim, both MO and UO, who have doubts. Anyone have any more stories along these lines ?
Aug 24, 2007 9:10 AM
Skeptics in Semichah Programs!_
We are all aware of the phenomenon of the ‘Frum Skeptic’, ‘Hassidic Heretic’ and so on. I had always assumed that these are people who have turned skeptical to various degrees over the years, usually in their 30s and 40s, but are still ‘stuck’ (from their POV) in the frum community. However, what came as a total surprise to me was that sometimes this process happens much earlier, and that there are actually people currently studying in Yeshivah, even in Semichah Programs, who are total skeptics!
And no, I’m not talking about JTS, or even YCT. I’m talking about RIETS Semichah Program, Lakewood Yeshivah and similar institutions. I just found out that there are people at those institutions, in Beis Medrash and even in Semichah Programs who are major skeptics! I was blown away when I found out about that. How can a skeptic get Semichah???? Unbelievable. But true.
Aug 24, 2007 9:10 AM
VERY IMPORTANT POSTS TODAY!!!!_
Stay tuned throughout the day. I have a bunch of VERY IMPORTANT posts today. I should probably space them out, but I can't wait to tell you all about it.
Aug 23, 2007 12:12 PM
Are Modern Orthodox Jews substantially different than Chareidim?_
Hirurim quotes from Julius Berman, from YU:
The modern Orthodox Jew is not a bifurcated human being composed of half-secular and half-holy parts. Indeed, that seems to be Feldman's thesis, the only difference being that he wants to adjust the borders between the two parts so as to include intermarriage within the secular part, thus making it acceptable.
On the contrary, the modern Orthodox Jew is a whole, undivided, non-conflicted being. While he is prepared to integrate the best of the modern world, he does so through the prism of the Torah. He adheres to the same Shulhan Aruch as the haredi Jew; he studies the same Torah and Talmud. The same Rambam and numerous other commentaries are studied in the beit midrash of the modern Orthodox yeshiva.
Funny. What Berman is describing, this is the idealistic conception of a Modern Orthodox Jew, it is hardly reality. Many MO Jews that I know are conflicted, or else compartmentalized.
More importantly though, I think there is indeed a qualitative difference between the MO and the Chareidim, much more than is superficially apparent.
MO Jews, (with the possible exception of RW MOs who are basically LW UOs) basically have a ‘Westernized 21st Century’ outlook and mentality. Sure, they also keep Halachah and believe in Torah (to some extent), but that is not in itself incompatible with a 21st Century Westernized outlook. After all, millions of 21st Century Westerners believe in Jesus and other crazy things.
Chareidim on the other hand belong to a different culture entirely. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly, and obviously there are differences between Bnei Brak Chareidi, Flatbush Chareidi, Lakewood Chareidi and Gateshead Chareidi, but basically Chareidi Culture and outlook is most definitely NOT 21st Century Western (though influences have inevitably crept in). Maybe I can characterize it as 18th Century Eastern European (or something along the same lines). But it is very different.
The key differences between Chareidim and MO are well documented and known: Respect for authority, attitude towards women, attitude towards Science, participation in secular culture, attitude towards Halachah etc etc. Sure, there are always some very broad minded Chareidim, who are quite comfortable in a Secular or Modern setting, and there are of course MOs who happily participate in Chareidi settings.
I, for example, can mix in both circles. (though less so more recently). But I have many MO friends who look at Chareidim as if they are the Taliban, from a different planet, and wouldn’t ever set foot in a Chareidi shul, or feel comfortable in a Chareidi environment. And vice versa of course. It’s two totally different cultures.
I would summarize it as follows:
MOs are basically Westernized 21st Century Moderns, who also have a few anachronistic Orthodox religious beliefs and practices.
Chareidim are basically 18th Century East Europeans, who also have a few anachronistic Western attitudes and practices.
Aug 23, 2007 1:27 AM
Skeptic Ideology Doesn't Work_
BTA writes as follows:
Dawkins actually has a few thoughts on this in the end of his Virus of Faith video. In short, we are all so fortunate to be alive. Clearly anyone who is blogging isn't terminally ill, or brain dead or some other horrible circumstance, e.g., dead.
We are alive! Consider how many unsuccessful combinations of genes never made it and never will make it to life. Think how many animals live a life span thousands of times shorter than ours. Think of how lucky we are to experience the feelings of love, beauty, music, poetry (and for those who like it, religious inspiration).
If you won the lottery today, you would feel incredibly happy because you would feel lucky and taken care of for life. Well, I bet most of you have homes and computers and cars, health insurance, ample food and fresh water, families that love you, etc. How lucky you all are!
A tremendous portion of the world suffers on the edge of poverty, famine, sickness. They watch their children die, succumbing to parasites or common illnesses. They are truly unlucky. No matter what god they believe in or pray to, their lives will be "nasty brutish and short".
You don't need religion to be inspired, take it from me, take it from Dawkins. You are not one of the 10,000 people in china put to death each year for unknown "crimes." You are not suffering from cholera or starvation.
You can celebrate your life. And yes, you can follow the G-O-L-D-E-N R-U-L-E.
If you were one of those less fortunate souls, you'd want someone super wealthy (any one of us by comparison) to help you.
Follow the Golden Rule, people. Don't do to anyone what you would not want done to you. It's really that simple.
Toss the Shulchan Aruch in the garbage. Hang up your tefillin for good.
Go for walks with your kids or elderly relatives. Spend quality time because, yes, we only go around this crazy marble just once and when you come to the end of your life, you'll no doubt wish you'd spent more time with your kids, not wishing you could have made it to just one more mussar shiur or minyan.
All very nice and inspiring. But does it work? No it does not! Sure, if you're a healthy, happy 21st century Western person it sounds fine. But healthy, happy 21st century Westerners are the most privileged group of people ever to live on this earth. What if you are in a concentration camp? Or starving in Africa? Or any one of a gazillion other not so nice situations? Then what?
Aug 22, 2007 2:19 PM
Skeptic: Prove that TMS is true!
Believer g: Of course religion can’t be proven.
Skeptic: So how do you know the Torah is true?
Believer g: My experience of Torah is that it’s true.
Skeptic: But maybe Koran is true?
Believer: Maybe for other people it is, but not for me.
Skeptic: How would you know that? You should go learn the Koran and maybe it will be true for you too!
Believer g: But I have my hands full with Torah! You have to start somewhere!
Skeptic: Yes, but why start with Torah? Shouldn’t you start somewhere else?
Believer g: But it says in the Torah ‘uvacharta bachayim!’
Skeptic: Good grief, I give up.
There’s a new article by Michael Shermer (Chief Skeptic) where he writes the following:
1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”
I think Shermer is correct. Rather than just bash religion endlessly, skeptics should be promoting their own ideology, based on truth, logic and reason.
So, with that in mind, here is my new ideology based on Science and Reason and Truth:
The Skeptic Ideology
Origins
Everything in the cosmos is composed of vibrating strings. There may be something beyond the cosmos, but we have no data and no evidence so currently there’s nothing to talk about there. Over time, these strings have morphed to form ever more complex structures. Humans are one such structure, though there’s not necessarily any more complexity in a human than say in a cockroach. Also cockroaches survive better than humans. Humans do have a very capable neuron processing organ though, called the brain. Based on current data, this universe of vibrating strings will eventually run down and everything in it will die.
Goal & Purpose
There is no real goal or purpose to the Universe, and by extension to anything in it. Humans have evolved a sense of purpose, and it makes many humans happy to think there is a purpose. If it makes you happy to think there’s a purpose then by all means think that, however since you have to commit to Truth and Reason, you must admit that the purpose is purely an invention of your own brain, and isn’t really a purpose at all.
Morality
Morality is an invention; created by evolutionary impulses. It isn’t real. It’s no more moral to step on an ant or a blade of grass than to murder a baby. However it makes humans happier to have morality, and it makes society run better (i.e. makes humans happier), so most societies have evolved rules to ensure that some form of ‘morality’ is adhered to. But really, it makes no difference what you do.
Responsibility
Free will and consciousness are really illusions of the mind, they don’t actually exist. However the illusion of them makes society enforce the myth that humans are responsible for their actions, and hence society will punish you if you do things contrary to the rules. And you may not like the punishment, so probably it will be better if you follow the rules. However if you can avoid capture, or if you like punishment, then by all means do whatever you like.
Life
There is no afterlife. When you die, you die. Since life is short, you might as well spend it doing whatever makes you feel happiest. If helping other people makes you feel happy then by all means do that, but you could equally well murder babies or do drugs or really do whatever you want. It makes no difference what you do, you will die sooner or later (probably sooner) and then there’s no afterlife. Plus, the universe will eventually die anyway.
I hope this little ideology, based on Science and Truth, has shown you that skeptics can be positive too. Oh, and don’t forget, we are all stardust!
Aug 21, 2007 1:44 AM
_I'm so conflicted, I haven't slept a wink
I'm so conflicted, my mind is on the blink
I wonder should I get up and fix myself a drink
No,no,no.
My eldest started kindergarten recently. It was lovely to see him wearing his new kippah and tzitzit, and going to tefillah, and learning Torah, all things he didn't really do in day care. My wife and I shlepped such nachas!
I'm so conflicted, I don't know what to do
I'm so conflicted, is my religion true
I wonder should I call my Rabbi but I know what he would do
Oh no, my eldest started fundamentalist kindergarten. Now begins 15 years of hard core indoctrination with a set of beliefs which are far from provably true. And I'm gonna be paying a fortune for this! What am I doing to him!? Is this child abuse, as Richard Dawkins claims? Can I morally justify brainwashing my own child?
He’d say I'm putting him on
But it's no joke, it's doing me harm
You know I can't sleep, I can't stop my brain
You know it's been two years, I think I'm going insane
You know I'd give everything I've got for a little peace of mind.
Y Aharon's arguments for religion are so weak he would be pretty easy to tear down. Wouldn't I be doing everyone a favor by proving how a typical Orthodox scientist really is totally illogical when it comes to his religion?
I'm so conflicted, my brain is in a fog
Although I'm so conflicted I'll do another blog
And curse out all the fundies
They are such stupid twits
Y Aharon totally reminds me of my father. My father had deep beliefs in Orthodox Judaism, but couldn't explain them either. Would I ever have wanted to argue against my father, and show him how his arguments were illogical? Of course not. Doing that to someone like that would give me no pleasure at all.
They’d say I'm putting them on
But it's no joke, it's doing me harm
You know I can't sleep, I can't stop my brain
You know it's been 2 years, I think I'm going insane
You know I'd give everything I've got for a little peace of mind
The fundamentalists make me crazy. I want to slap em upside the head and make them see sense. How can they expect people to take them seriously. They're intellectually dishonest. They're charlatans of the first order. They're nuts!
I'd give everything I've got for a little peace of mind
I'd give everything I've got for a little peace of mind
I spent Shabbos in the Largest north Atlantic Kehillah on the East coast in the Western hemisphere for chareidi Oriented people Of torah true Descent. It was lovely. The ruach was awesome, the mussar shmoozen was heartfelt, the davening was bekavanah and moving. Moiradick!
Aug 20, 2007 12:03 AM
Is Orthodoxy Intellectually Dishonest?_
In a previous post I wrote about the intellectual dishonesty of Orthodoxy. In this post I'd like to spell out the arguments more clearly. Here are the reasons why I believe Orthodoxy is intellectually dishonest, I have written some of these before but have yet to see any good responses.
1. The Halachah places limits on what you can believe (and according to some people on what you can even investigate). If you have an a-priori rule which dictates what you must or must not believe in, no matter what the evidence, then by definition you are biased, and cannot be honest. Some people (e.g. RJM) try and get round this by saying that if they were ever truly convinced that Judaism was false then they would reject it. (a) I don't believe that and (b) That's contrary to Halachah. Either you are committed to Halachah or you aren't. If your commitment is provisional on you thinking it is true, then that's not a full commitment. Also, of course, Halachah does not 'allow' you to decide it isn't true.
2. MOs claim to accept Science. The foundations of Science include evidence, statistics and reasoning through induction. There is clearly no present evidence for any supernatural beings. Many tens or even hundreds of religions all have ancient myths about God or gods. MOs believe they are all false, except of course for their own. Yet statistically, 99% of all religious beliefs are false, and nobody has any good evidence for any religion being true. If MOs truly accepted science, they would accept that in all likelihood, given current evidence, OJ is false. (Doesn't mean it is false, but it does mean that it certainly looks false).
3. It's obvious that religious people have no credibility, and are completely and utterly biased. We don't even need to look at other religions to see this, we can just look at our own. Tens of thousands of Lubavitchers are absolutely convinced that the Rebbe is Moshiach. Tens of Gedolim, and hundreds of major Chareiid Roshei Yeshivot etc are absolutely convinced that the universe is 6,000 year old, despite overwhelming and totally convincing evidence to the contrary. If the world's greatest Torah scholars can be so wrong, why would you assume that they were ever right? Some MOs (e.g. RJM and some Torah & Sciencenicks) will argue that of course the Gedolim have got it wrong, but the hard core of Rambam rationalists have the one true derech. This of course is an even more ludicrous suggestion. Soa ll the Gedolim are wrong, but RJM and friends are right?! Again, this doesn't mean OJ is absolutely false. But it does mean that when it comes to religion no one had any credibility at all. (RJM actually agreed to me on this, apart from himself of course).
4. There's hardly a serious Bible scholar in the world who doesn't think the bible is a composite document. In fact, it's blatantly obvious when you just read the Torah - differences in style, contradictions, missing passages, duplicate passages and so on. When Moslems argue that the Koran must be from God because it has the most beautiful language ever, we laugh at them. However we argue that the Torah must be from God because it so amazing (or the Kuzari or whatever), and then we use TSBP to fill in all the holes. There's no difference here, except for bias.
5. Most Rabbis that I have ever spoken to believe less in private than what they preach publicly. This is true of LW MO, RW MO and even LW UO. The usual excuse given for this is that the 'tzibur' couldn't understand the nuances, and therefore it is better to keep quiet about it. Again, intellectually dishonest.
6. The Orthodox community does not allow unbelief. We have at least progressed from stoning people to death or putting them in cherem. However the community still demands that all community members must (publicly at least) adhere to a certain set of beliefs (and consequent behaviors). Since there is no good evidence for these beliefs, insisting that people follow them is dishonest. Some Rabbis try and get around this by saying it's like joining a club - you are free to join or leave, but while in the club you must follow the rules. However this too is dishonest, because for the vast majority of Orthodox club members, leaving would be extremely difficult and painful, and the community would make sure of that.
I'm sure there's more but I'll stop at 6.
Note: Not all of Orthodoxy is dishonest. I know people, possibly the Chief Rabbi too, who will agree that of course all religion lack credibility, and that Judaism is merely plausible, rather than probable, but it is a great religion and has a lot to offer. I find that to be refreshingly honest, if a little demotivating.
Aug 16, 2007 11:50 AM
Hirhurim posts some letters from The Jewish Press. Although the letters are ostensibly about Rabbi Slifkin, it’s pretty obvious that really this has nothing to do with Rabbi Slifkin at all. His views were hardly revolutionary, just a restatement of the more rational minded Rishonim and Acharonim. And no different than what most MO Rabbis and even quite a few LW UO Rabbis have been saying for years, even hundreds of years.
So when letter writers write in to defend Rabbi Slifkin’s viewpoint, really they are defending their own rational viewpoint, and when letter writers write in to attack Rabbi Slifkin, really they are writing in to attack that viewpoint and defend their own. The man Slifkin himself is irrelevant to the debate, and could equally well be somebody else entirely, or nobody at all.
Of course there was a strong human angle to the whole story at the beginning; ‘Young populist Rabbi gets banned by nasty establishment Gedolim’ (or alternatively ‘Upstart chutzpanick kofer gets his just desserts’, depending on your POV), but that aspect of the debate has long since been dead and buried, and good job too. The debate now is about what it always should have been about (and really was always about) i.e. the approach – ‘Should we compromise on Science or shouldn’t we.’
I know all the above is absolutely ‘bleedin obvious, but some people still don’t seem to get it.
Considering my general skeptical attitude towards religious people claiming to be in possession of truth, why do I even care about this debate? I’m not 100% sure, but even today I still find this debate fascinating. Not because I’m genuinely unsure about whether the world is 6,000 years old, or whether God wrote the Torah word for word, but rather because the debate is a microcosm of a larger debate: namely a rational objective view of life vs. a non rational subjective view.
Avi Goldstein writes:
For those of us who believe, as the Talmud says, that God’s seal is emmet, truth, Rabbi Slifkin’s intellectual honesty [read: my Modern Orthodox / LW Ultra Orthodox intellectual honesty] remains a breath of fresh air.
The problem is, as is abundantly clear every single day both on this blog and in real life, the Modern Orthodox suffer from a lack of intellectual honesty too, though they find it hard to admit to that. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize the following:
There is global agreement on Science, across all cultures and (liberal) religions. There is global disagreement on Religion, across all religions, across sub-sects of the same religion, and even across tiny sub-sub-sects of the same sub-sect of the same religion.
Now, why is this? Are Scientists eminently reasonable and agreeable people, while religious clergy are not? I doubt it. People are people (so why should it be, religion disagrees so awfully). And it wasn’t like Science was a well established discipline with global agreement for thousands of years. On the contrary, most scientific theories are fairly new, and started out in much confusion and disagreement. Yet in a few short decades it has gained global agreement. Meanwhile, Religion, which is much more important to everyone’s everyday life, and has been going on for thousands of years, has not reached hardly any agreement at all, and doesn’t seem to be getting any closer either.
Why is this?
The answer is pretty obvious. Science deals with objective facts. Science has experiments. Science tells you about the world, and the world is available for our perusal to check whether Science is indeed accurate. The truth of Science is readily verifiable, and that’s why there’s hardly any argument. Of course there is furious debate in some areas, such as String Theory or some aspects of evolution, and those are precisely the areas where there is a lack of evidence and experimentation.
Religion on the other hand has no objective facts. No experiments, and no ‘reality’ with which to compare. All religious arguments are highly subjective, all religious beliefs are highly suspect. Also, the stigma of bias is absolutely unavoidable here. 99% of all strongly religious people continue in the specific religion of their parents and community. Changes between religions, or even between different sub sects of the same religion, are so relatively rare as to be statistically insignificant.
True, there are periods where there are wholesale shifts to the left or right, but that is another matter entirely. When it comes to religion, no one has evidence, no one has facts, and everyone is so incredibly biased, they have no credibility at all. And this is exactly why there is global disagreement – because absolutely nobody from any religion (or any religious sub-sect) finds anyone else remotely convincing.
In the same way we laugh at Christian & Moslem attempts at apologetics, they equally laugh at ours. When you step back from the whole enterprise with a rational, objective and INTELLECTUALLY HONEST viewpoint, all the above becomes abundantly clear. Unfortunately few people within fundamentalist religion (and yes, that includes Modern Orthodoxy) are able to do this, and to have real intellectual honesty.
Meanwhile, at least Avi Goldstein comes across as somewhat reasonable, if delusional. In contrast, Yaakov Stern comes across as a raving idiot. He writes:
I am no prophet, but I can predict with certainty that within twenty years most of what the scientific community presently believes will be relegated to the dustbin of history.
True, you are no prophet, but you are a fool. Why on earth would you make such a foolish prediction? It’s patently untrue. Has the science of 1980 been consigned to the dustbin of history?
Still, I can’t decide who annoys me more. The extreme fundamentalists with their total rejection of common sense, or the moderate fundamentalists with their intellectually dishonest approach, and their constant hypocritical crowing about how intellectually honest they are. I think ultimately I am more comfortable with the MOs, but only because they are slightly more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
Aug 15, 2007 11:50 AM
Looking for an MO shul in Northern NJ / NY_
I'll be in Northern NJ in a few days and I need a shul with a reliable weekday minyan, preferably LW MO so they don't stone me. Any suggestions? Shtiebles need not apply.
Aug 15, 2007 10:11 AM
The Million Dollar Question - When did belief in TMS start?_
e-kvetcher (who has excellent eclectic taste by the way) asks the million dollar question:
"Where does the belief that every word of the Torah is dictated by G-d come from? I mean, I know it is from Chazal, but was it accepted by all of them without any other opinions? What about groups other than Pharisees?
I mean the Torah does not claim that itself."
I have been asking that question for 2 years. I even have a Chavrusoh in that topic! So far we have gone through many of the references to Har Sinai in Tenach to see what the Torah thought about itself. And, as a Jacques Berlinblau writes in his book 'The Secular Bible', the Torah is the least self conscious religious book ever. The Koran constantly goes on about how Holy the Koran is, and how it came directly from God etc, but the Torah rarely says anything like that. The few references to 'Sefer' in the Torah are entirely ambiguous, and could be talking about specific passages, 'teaching' in general, or maybe just the book of Devarim.
So where did the belief in TMS (as applied davkah to the 5 books of Moses) come from? Unfortunately there is a big black hole I think. We have the Tenach, which was written (or transmitted) over a perdiod of many centuries, say from 1300BC to 500BC, and then we have the Gemarah, which dates from say 100CE to 600CE, and from them on we have the Geonim, Rishonim and a pretty constant stream of writing until the present day.
But there's a huge gaping hole there between 500BCE and 100CE (approximately). What happened? Why no writings from that period? Also, you have the mysterious 140? years which get 'lost' in Chazal's chronology. Is that connected?
Anyone have any ideas?
Aug 14, 2007 9:11 PM
Believers need to show skeptics more respect_
I'm sick and tired of the disrespect shown to skeptics by believers. Phrases like 'skeptics spewing their stuff' and similar. When a believer says a dvar Torah, do we talk about believers 'spewing their stuff'? No we don't.
And as for skeptics 'venting' - well wouldn't you vent if you were forced to believe in the unbelievable, and forced to do the most ridiculous things? Damn right you would vent, I know that for a fact. And, this is all the believers fault anyway for making it almost impossible for a skeptic to believe what he wants and do what he wants.
It's easy for cowardly, intellectually dishonest skeptics to live in their delusional bubble along with the rest of their co-delusionists. But it takes courage for someone to be intellectually honest and face the truth (as they see it). And for that they deserve your respect. You may be too weak willed and cowardly to face up the to the truth yourself, but at least show some respect for those who value truth more than their own personal comfort.
Don't make me have to tell you again. Next time, I won't be so nice about it.
Aug 14, 2007 9:11 PM
I finally figured out the AOJS!_
For the past two years the following question has haunted me:
How can Orthodox Scientists maintain a belief in Torah Min Hashamayim and other non rational beliefs? Shouldn’t Scientists be more aware than anyone about the need for proofs, evidence and so on?
Finally, Y Aharon (whom I recall once said he was a Scientist), has provided me with the answer. He wrote the following on my bias thread below:
This is silly. Apart from things that can be verified objectively, all statements are subjective. If it appeals, then consider it; if it still makes sense, then integrate it into your life.
How can a scientist say such a thing? I think the answer is clear. These people are highly biased towards the hard sciences. Anything that isn’t hard science is just so much fluff to them, and it doesn’t really matter what you believe. I’m not joking, I really think this is their mentality. And it does have a certain clarity to it I guess. I’m going to have to think about this one.
Aug 14, 2007 9:11 PM
Awesome article, which proves everything I have ever said is correct_
The Sacred and the Human
by Roger Scruton
Today's atheist polemics ignore the main insight of the anthropology of religion—that religion is not primarily about God, but about the human need for the sacred. As René Girard argues, religion is not the cause of violence, but the solution to it
It is not surprising that decent, sceptical people, observing the revival in our time of superstitious cults, the conflict between secular freedoms and religious edicts, and the murderousness of radical Islamism, should be receptive to the anti-religious polemics of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. The "sleep of reason" has brought forth monsters, just as Goya foretold in his engraving. How are we to rectify this, except through a wake-up call to reason, of the kind that the evangelical atheists are now shouting from their pulpits?
What is a little more surprising is the extent to which religion is caricatured by its current opponents, who seem to see in it nothing more than a system of unfounded beliefs about the cosmos—beliefs that, to the extent that they conflict with the scientific worldview, are heading straight for refutation. Thus Hitchens, in his relentlessly one-sided diatribe God is Not Great, writes: "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody… had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs)."
Read the rest here.
Aug 14, 2007 9:11 PM
Hirhurim bans skeptical comments, creates void for honest debate_
So Gil has finally come out and banned skeptical comments. I think this is fair enough, he’s the baal hablog and he can ban anything he likes. I also agree with him that it doesn’t necessarily imply his religious views can’t withstand criticism. However he brings it on himself I think. He quotes from Louis Jacobs and other Conservative, Reform or Christian clergy, he bashes Cross Currents (sarcastically). So what does he expect? He seems somewhat skeptical to me. He treads a very fine line indeed, one which gets most normal people confused.
He says ‘comments which undermine Judaism’ will be deleted. But which Judaism? Do frum Conservatives ‘undermine’ Judaism? Of course it’s all subjective. The Gedolim would insist that Gil ‘undermines Judaism’. Gil thinks the skeptics ‘undermine Judaism’, I guess what he meant to say was ‘comments which undermine my particular brand of Orthodox Judaism will be deleted’. OK, he can do that too. But it means the debate is that much poorer.
Still, the jblogworld desperately needs places where people can debate these issues honestly and objectively without fear of being deleted or harassed. Since Gil has taken himself out of the running, other venues no doubt will increase in popularity.
So which blogs do I support? Any blog which allows proper debate and doesn’t moderate comments. I don’t care if the blog is (Jewish) Atheist, Charedi, or anywhere in between. If the baal hablog tackles the important issues (that I care about), and allows honest, uncensored debate, then he gets my vote.
Here is a short list, readers are encouraged to add their own favorites in the comments:
On The Main Line
Major proponent of the DH and accurate history. Extremely knowledgeable in all aspects of traditional and modern Torah, gives the believers the willies because he’s always right.
DovBear
Pretends to be a nice heimishe yid, but deep down is a major kofer who thinks the ‘Torah got messed up after Sinai’, and only keeps OJ ‘because he likes it, not because it contains truth’. Great blogger though, and we probably agree on pretty much everything, so I should probably quit hassling him! (It’s the narcissism of small differences, and also that I'm prickly and he's goo).
LittleFoxling
An expert in Tenach, getting a little grumpy recently, but always a good read.
Jewish Atheist
Always very thoughtful and thought provoking posts.
OrthoPrax
Veers between Orthodoxy and Skepticism, on the whole fairly balanced and quite similar to my views in a lot of places.
Jewish Philosopher
OK so he’s a bit nuts but he does allow debate on the issues, and he does continually tackle all the important issues, so he gets my respect for that.
Any others?
Aug 14, 2007 9:11 PM
Littlefoxling on RYBS and bias_
I saw this hysterical comment on littlefoxling (lightly edited for context) about how religious thinkers, even brilliant religious thinkers like RYBS are unavoidably biased:
Since you bring up RYBS, let’s analyze him. I don’t have statistics for when he was alive, so I’ll use today’s statistics instead. Of 6 billion people in the world, 99.75% of them aren’t Jewish so they don’t think Halachah is from Sinai. Coincidently, RYBS sides with the 0.25% of the world he’s born into.
But, wait it gets better! Of the Jews, say around 80% are not OJ’s. Again, coincidently, RYBS falls into the 20% he’s born into.
But, wait it gets better! RYBS could have been Chassidic or Misnagdish. Like everyone else, he sides with his parents.
But, wait it gets better! RYBS is a Brisker! What a coincidence! Again, RYBS sides with his parents and is very Brisker in his approach to psak and learning. How many true Briskers are there in the world? A few thousand? What is that? .0001% of the world. So, coincidently, RYBS takes a stance at odds with 99.9999% of the world, and coincidently, it’s his parent’s views?
But, wait it gets better! Most of the Briskers were anti secular studies. Coincidently, the one child or Rav Chaim Brisker to have kids that valued secular studies was Rav Moshe who coincidently was the one who married a wife who valued secular education, and coincidently, all 3 of their kids were known for valuing secular education – RYBS was the great scion of MO, Rav Aharon was known for being open minded, and Rav Shmuel was a Chemist and a Rabbi. So, of the 2 billion or so people in the world at the time, there were around 10 that were Briskers and MO (or 0.00000017% of the world) and coincidently all the of them were brothers and coincidently all 3 of them had a Brisker dad and an MO Mom.
But, wait, it gets better! Look at the Ruv’s kids. Dr. Grach is very MO. Tovah married an MO Brisker and the other girl (forget her name) married a super duper MO academic who was an expert in Rambam. And, virtually all their decedents straddle the worlds of MO and Brisk.
And, you want me to believe he wasn’t biased? Gimme a freekin break!
LOL. However, just because RYBS was clearly biased from birth, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have anything valuable to say. On the contrary, if everyone had to start from scratch we would never get anywhere, so it’s good that we have particular ‘schools’ of thought which get propagated father to son (or teacher to student). And of course the son / student is always able to modify, extend and expand on the original philosophy / ideology / theory.
Still, littlefoxling is obviously correct when it comes to theology. All religious fundamentalists are so unavoidably biased that they clearly have little objectivity when it comes to religious arguments. That doesn’t mean their religion is necessarily false, but it does mean they have no credibility.
Aug 11, 2007 11:26 PM
The Mei Hashiloach on Noah Feldman, or XGH gets Chassidish_
The Mei Hashiloach, aka the Ishbitzer, has a very interesting take on the story of Pinchas. He says that no way would the Torah have told us the story of Zimri if Zimri was stam a lowlife. Rather, he explains that Zimri was actually a big tzaddik. There are ten levels of yetzer horoh with aroyos. The lowest level is when someone allows his yetzer horo (or incites his yetzer horoh) and goes and commits an aveirah. The highest level is when someone with all his koach fights against his yetzer. If you fight with all your koach, but see it still doesn’t help, then it’s a sign that it’s min hashamayim for you to commit the aveirah. Zimri had fought with all his might against his yetzer for Cozbi, but saw he couldn’t win, and then realized that Cozbi must be his ‘bat zug mi’shisha yemei breishit’ and that it was min hashamayim for him to be with her. And that's why Zimri went and was boel her. Pinchas, who was on a lower madreigah, a ‘naar’ in these inyanim, didn’t understand this, and so he killed him. But really Pinchas was in the wrong, and the only reason he got off was because Moshe had pity on him.
Quite an amazing peshat!
UPDATE: Some of my rational commenters (Y Aharon in particular) couldn't believe that the Ishbitzer actually said this, they accused me of misrepresenting the vort. Well here is the original:
וירא פנחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן, ויקח כו', ולא יעלה ח"ו על הדעת לומר שזמרי הי' נואף ח"ו כי מן הנואף לא עשה הקב"ה פרשה בתורה, אך יש סוד בדבר זה, דהנה יש יו"ד נקודות בזנות, הנקודה הא' מי שמקשט עצמו והולך במזיד לדבר עבירה היינו שהאדם בעצמו מושך עליו היצ"הר, ואח"ז יש עוד ט' מדרגות, ובכל המדרגות שניטל מהאדם כח בחירתו ואי אפשר לו להמלט מעבירה, עד המדריגה היו"ד, היינו מי שמרחיק עצמו מן היצ"הר ושומר עצמו מן העבירה בכל כוחו עד שאין ביכולתו לשמור א"ע יותר מזה, ואז כשנתגבר יצרו עליו ועושה מעשה אז הוא בודאי רצון הש"י, וכענין יהודה ותמר, ואיהי בת זוגו ממש וזה הענין הי' גם כאן, כי זמרי הי' באמת שומר עצמו מכל התאוות הרעות, ועתה עלתה בדעתו שהיא בתו זוגו מאחר שאין בכוחו לסלק א"ע מזה המעשה, ופנחס אמר להיפך שעדיין יש בכוחו לסלק עצמו מזה, וזה שמרמז הגמ' יו"ד נסים נעשו לפנחס, וכדאיתא שם אלו פירש זמרי והרגו לפנחס הי' פטור כי באמת הי' כאן שקול הדעת כי גם על פנחס הי' מקום לבע"הד לחלוק שמצוי בו מדה הנראה לעינים שהוא כעס כמו שבאמת טענו עליו זאת והי' הדין בזה שודא דדיינא ופירש ר"ת ע"ז שיכולת הדיין ליתן לקרוביו, ולכך יצא פנחס זכאי לפי שהי' קרוב למרב"עה, וז"ש ושם האיש ישראל המוכה, היינו שהקב"ה הראה לפנחס אחר מעשה שעשה עם מי הי' המלחמה שלו שאל יחשוב כי נואף גמור הי' ח"ו, ופנחס מחמת שהי' בא מזרע יוסף שנתברר בסיגופים ונסיונות בענין זה ולכך הרע בעיניו מאד על מעשה זמרי, וע"ז נאמר כי נער ישראל ואוהבהו, וזה ממש ענין פנחס שהי' דן את זמרי לנואף בעלמא, ע"כ דן אותו קנאין פוגעין בו ונעלם ממנו עומק יסוד הדבר שהי' בזמרי כי היא היתה בת זוגו מששת ימי בראשית, כמו שמבואר בכתבי האר"י ז"ל, עד שמרב"עה לא הכניס א"ע בזה לדונו במיתה ונמצא שפנחס הי' במעשה הזה כנער היינו שלא הי' יודע עמקות הדבר רק ע"פי עיני שכל אנושי ולא יותר, ואעפ"כ הש"י אוהבו והסכים עמו, כי לפי שכלו עשה דבר גדול בקנאתו ומסר את נפשו
Ha!
I just thought of a great idea: A series of posts on radical Chassidic thought. That should blow a few minds.
Aug 11, 2007 11:26 PM
[Copied shamelessly from Jewish Atheist. Why? Because Jewish Atheist got it from Stephen of Outside the Box and Emerging from Babel, and also I have said this before. Only this guy says it better.]
1. Premodern people
If you want to know what a pre-modern person looks like, don't suppose that fundamentalists constitute a contemporary case study. Paradoxically, fundamentalists (whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish) are a product of modernity. In The Battle For God (there's a good review here), Karen Armstrong argues that fundamentalism arose in reaction to modernity. Two inferences follow:
Fundamentalists of the contemporary sort did not exist when the Bible was written.
Contemporary fundamentalists are thoroughly modernist in their mindset.
Contemporary fundamentalists are modernists because they attempt to read the scriptures literally, as if they were lab reports or newsreel footage. Skeptics read the scriptures that way too, and find an easy target for mockery. If you want to know what a pre-modern person looks like, native American (Indians) provide a better example. I'm sure that Indians have been co-opted by modernity in many respects. But insofar as they have preserved their ancestral way of life, they also preserve elements of a pre-modern worldview.
In native communities, we see a mindset starkly different than that of fundamentalism. The difference is, Indians understand the literary genre, myth. Of course "myth" is our label, not theirs; they would perhaps speak of "our traditions" or "the wisdom of the elders". Regardless, Indians "get" myth in a way that fundamentalists manifestly do not. For example, each Indian community has its own creation myth, often giving primordial animals a pivotal role. No one seems troubled by the fact that the tale circulated in one region contradicts the tale circulated in another region. No one asks whether Earth was "really" made from foam or mud, or whether the trickster is "really" a coyote or a raven. And no one feels compelled to take up arms to slay the infidel. It's all good seems to be the general attitude: because Indians relate to the stories as myth. Even if the stories can't be taken literally, they have value because of the worldview they inculcate. They tell Indians how to relate to their world (e.g., respect Mother Earth; always give something back to her when you take something). They tell Indians what their place in the world is (man is not the focal point of creation, but just one of Mother Earth's inhabitants). And the stories inculcate not only a mindset but also a way of life. The stories look backward, and the way of life involves preserving the practices of the past. If you told an Indian that her traditions have no value because they are not science or history, she would tell you that you have a queer value system.
2. Genesis 1-11 as myth
Contemporary Indian communities have many traits in common with the ancestral Israelites. The following examples come to mind:
communitarian (not individualist) orientation;
tribal organization;
ruled by elders;
focus on ownership of land as crucial to survival and community identity;
traditional wisdom and mores expressed in narrative (not propositional) form.
traditions passed down orally. (Indian communities still rely on the oral transmission of their most important traditions, even today.)
the way of life involved preserving the practices of the past. (In Israel, the prophets introduced a future-oriented perspective. Even then, the prophets continued to point Israel back to its origins in the Exodus.)
I'm suggesting that the ancient Israelites probably regarded their origin stories approximately the same way as contemporary Indian communities regard theirs. I presume that they didn't take the stories literally. They wouldn't have been troubled by contradictory details. They wouldn't have insisted that this thing or that thing "really happened". For example, scholars believe that there are two variant accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. Both accounts insist that humankind is the focal point of creation. Genesis 1 makes the point by recounting that humans were created last — the crowning jewel of creation. Genesis 2 makes the point by recounting that humans were created first — thus taking precedence over everything else:
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land [or "yet in the earth"] and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up — for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land … then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground…. (Genesis 2:4-7a, English Standard Version)
Note that there is only one "day" of creation, not seven (per Genesis 1). And human beings were created before there was any vegetation (contra Genesis 1, in which vegetation was created on day three and human beings on day seven). Skeptics might suppose that the editor of Genesis was sloppy, and didn't notice the hopeless contradiction between the above text and Genesis 1. This is a constant temptation: to suppose that "primitive" peoples lacked intellectual sophistication. More likely, the editor considered that he had two creation stories which approached the topic from two different vantage points, and he was loathe to lose either of them. The presence of variant details (was it "really" a coyote, or was it a raven?) was simply immaterial. Fundamentalists betray a modernist mindset when they insist that the variant details 'Can too!' be reconciled, and they set out to devise convoluted explanations to prove it.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis constitute Israel's prehistory. The narratives were told and retold (or re-enacted, as a kind of dramatic performance) in communal settings. Each performance would vary in small details, reflecting the individual storyteller's personality and artistry. This process went on generation after generation, until the stories were crafted into the (stylized) forms they now take. Only then were they compiled and shaped into a continuous narrative by an anonymous editor. (Moses? It's unlikely, since Moses was a man of action, not a man of letters; but in any event it doesn't matter — it's beside the point.) Everything in the first eleven chapters of Genesis is myth, pure and simple. The traditions are nonetheless invaluable to people of faith.
3. Myth and history elsewhere in the Bible
What of the later chapters of Genesis, plus the rest of the Pentateuch and the later historical books? Here the division between myth and not-myth is not so straightforward. The general picture — oral tradition, re-enacted with variant details over countless generations — still applies. Thus even the historical traditions that have come down to us are highly stylized. And even when the oral traditions were set down in writing, it was only a sort of first edition. The editorial process continued unabated. Scholars maintain that the traditions were re-edited at critical junctures to keep them current in new historical circumstances. This process continued until the exile in Babylon, during which the Hebrew scriptures evidently took their final form.
Did Abraham even exist? Did the Exodus happen? Did Elijah defeat the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel? The only access we have to these events is through Israel's stylized traditions. We certainly don't have enough data to convince a "scientific" historian, because science always begins from a position of skepticism. Historians do not concede the benefit of the doubt. In some cases, the appeal to myth continues to serve us very well, even in ostensibly historical settings. For example, the Akedah — the binding of Isaac. When God commanded Abraham to slay Isaac, Abraham was ready to obey. He didn't even pause to plead for Isaac's life, as he had for Lot's family when God resolved to destroy Sodom. If we regard the story as history, it is morally repugnant. But what if we regard it as myth — a kind of morality play? We can then distance ourselves from a literal application: Obedience to God must be absolute, even if God asks you to murder your own child. We can instead focus attention on the moral progress which the story brought about: The descendants of Abraham learned from this narrative that child sacrifice is contrary to God's will.
Conclusion
I hate to leave the reader hanging at this point. There's at least one crucial question that I haven't addressed: What method shall we use to interpret pre-modern traditions in a (post)modern era? I could share a series of hermeneutic principles in response to that question, but the post is already too long. At least I have made the following points:
Fundamentalists are modernist in their mindset;
Ancient Israel probably regarded its traditions approximately the way that contemporary Indians regard their traditions;
The process of oral transmission has distanced the texts from the actual historical events, and cast them in a highly stylized form;
Therefore the biblical traditions cannot be interpreted literally, like a lab report or newsreel footage;
But the traditions are still invaluable to people of faith: even if they are entirely (Genesis 1-11) or partially (Genesis 12-50) mythological in nature.
I don't suppose that any of Jewish Atheist's readers will assent to all of the above points. The point of view that I represent (influenced by the philosopher Paul Ricoeur and the Protestant Christian exegete Walter Brueggemann) is alien to skeptics and true believers alike. Whether or not people find my perspective persuasive, I wanted to make the point that there is a "third way" on offer. This "third way" avoids the dichotomy that is usually represented in debates over religion: a literal reading of scripture (on the one hand) and a repudiation of scripture (on the other). In my view, fundamentalists and skeptics both misunderstand the Bible because they apply a modernist mindset to it.
Aug 10, 2007 12:04 PM
What’s the difference between Sholom Hamelech and Noah Feldman?_
Hirhurim has been posting links to pretty much every article on Noah Feldman.
Except this one.
I wonder why?! The article points out the inconsistencies we have with respect to intermarriage. For example, the article says that Kirk Douglas, intermarried with non-Jewish sons, has his essays on Judaism appearing on the Aish HaTorah Web site. I couldn’t believe that at first, but then I found this:
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/odysseys/Climbing_the_Mountain_-_An_Interview_with_Kirk_Douglas.asp
Then of course you have Shlomoh Hamelech:
“King Solomon, a Jewish leader if there ever was one, was a compulsive intermarrier. He is reported in the First Book of Kings to have “loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites, from the nations of whom [God] said to the children of Israel, “You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you.” And indeed, “his wives turned his heart after other gods,” he built temples to his wives’ gods. Somehow, Solomon gets a pass.”
Funnily enough, about two weeks ago I commented on Hirhurim about how some people believe that a blanket ban on all intermarriage was only invented by Chazal. Gil dinged me for spewing kefirah on his site, but then Proff Lawrence Kaplan pointed out that this was a view in the Rishonim! Gil is a bit quick on the kefirah trigger I think.
So why can Shlomoh Hamelech marry out and still get praised, but not Feldman?
I guess the difference here is obvious: Shlomo donated big money to his local Temple. Feldman didn’t. If Feldman was a multi-billionaire donor, you can be damn sure even Lakewood Yeshivah would be turning a blind eye, or figuring out some way to get the money without people noticing.
Aug 10, 2007 12:04 PM
Why be rational? The PoMo defense of Orthodoxy_
Every once in a while, I see some deluded believer (usually Modern Orthodox unfortunately) try the PoMo defense of Judaism (it’s not really PoMO to be exact but it’s in the same league of silliness). I noticed Deganev and Sumdumju doing it yesterday on Hirhurim. The conversation usually goes something like this:
Believer: I believe in TMS
Skeptic: Why do you have that faith?
Believer: Why do you have faith in rationality? Huh?! Answer me that and then I’ll answer you!
Skeptic: (splutters) Don’t be ridiculous! Everyone has faith in rationality! Without rationality nothing would make any sense! You have to be rational!
Believer: Ah, but you can’t prove that! All systems have some basic axioms which are non provable and are just assumed. So I don’t need to prove my ikkarim either!
Skeptic: Good grief!
What’s the emmes here? The emmes is poshut.
Every human (and every animal actually) is wired to be rational. That’s how the Universe works. True, we could all be brains in a jar and in the real world irrationality actually ‘works’ better (whatever the heck that even means because it doesn’t mean anything much in our world), but nobody thinks like that, because if you did, you would be committed to a mental institution. And for good reason.
The only people who think irrationality is better are severely mentally retarded people, and really they don’t even think that, they’re too retarded to think anything at all. Though of course, even with such people, their bodies are still ‘hard wired’ in a rational fashion, i.e. they will recoil from painful heat, etc.
So if the only way to address the question ‘Why do you believe in the ikkarim’ is to respond ‘Why be rationa?l’, or alternatively ‘All systems have fundamental axioms which are just accepted and are non provable, these are mine’, you know they’ve already lost the debate. Nobody accepts basic principles ‘just because’. People accept principles because they make sense, and are true. This type of answer is the ultimate cop-out.
And not only is it a fake answer, we know it’s a dishonest answer too, because the people promoting this type of answer don’t really believe it. They don’t use this type of reasoning anywhere else in their lives, but only when faced with the issue of why they believe in religious beliefs which have no evidence. Of course the real truth is that they believe for all sorts of extraneous reasons: indoctrination, bias, it makes them happy, peer pressure etc etc. Just like every other religious believer on the planet. But they usually don’t want to admit that.
Ironically, you rarely hear this kind of reasoning from the Chareidim. They usually insist they believe in the ikkarim because of the Gedolim, or the Mesorah, or Chazal. These are actually (relatively) better responses (I think) than the phony pseudo philosophical PoMo nonsense above.
Also, I think the believers promoting these arguments know it’s bs. They just do it to annoy the skeptics. And guess what? It works! Nothing annoys a skeptic more than when a believer goes all PoMo. It’s the last (pathetic) resort of people who insist on believing things they ‘know ain’t true; the only option left is to redefine “truth” itself.
Aug 10, 2007 12:20 AM
There's always someone worse off...._
_So here I am, in Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy land, where everyone is basically an Orthopraxic kofer anyways, and I think I have it bad. Then I see this guy who can't even buy OU-D without his wife giving him dirty looks! There really is always someone worse off.
I wonder if there's a angst ridden Reform skeptic blogger out there who uses me as his 'there's always someone worse off' example. Could be.
Aug 9, 2007 4:03 PM
Received by email: I hate angst and I hate MO_
"I hate angst. I don't care so much if TMS is true, but I hate not knowing. I hate the possibility of going OTD [Off The Derech] if it's true, I hate the possibility of being frum if it's not true. That's why I hate MO. It muddles the waters. Sure, MO is ridiculous, but it's a lot less ridiculous than UO. If it was just atheist vs UO I'd have no sfeikos. I'd just go OTD. MO introduces self doubt which I can't stand."
I hear this. But for me, the same little niggling doubt that maybe MO is true I have equally well for Chareidim. Also for Atheism. I think I just hate everybody who pretends to have any derech, because they're all faking it.
Aug 9, 2007 4:03 PM
Holy Cow! The Karaites are back!_
http://www.forward.com/articles/11315/
Money quote:
"One day all of Judaism will finally settle that only the word of the Tanakh is divine, and we should all go back to it."
You never know, it could happen.
Aug 9, 2007 2:26 PM
Hirhurim posts two opposing letters about Science & Torah. These letters capture the basic argument as to what is the better approach: In the face of contradictions between Science and Torah, should we attempt to compromise a little, or should we strengthen faith in Torah and Chazal no matter what the evidence. And the question of how to reconcile Science and Torah is really just a microcosm of the larger question of how to reconcile Modernity and Orthodoxy.
And I’m torn.
On the one hand, from a rational objective standpoint, the reconciliation strategy of the Modern Orthodox is just not credible. Y Aharon writes:
“There is no necessary contradiction between a critical, objective, and scientific point of view about natural phenomena, and an imaginative, optimistic, and mystical view about other phenomena.”
To which someone responded:
“True. However there is a necessary contradiction between a critical, objective, and scientific point of view of history and religion, and an an imaginative, optimistic, and mystical view about your particular religion being the one true religion without any question.”
And this is obviously the crux of the problem.
You can’t teach people to think critically, rationally and objectively, and then simultaneously drill into them 13 dogmas of faith which they must believe ‘no matter what the evidence’.
It’s a stirah minay ubay. The only reason it works at all (in Modern Orthodoxy) is because most people don’t think very clearly.
On the other hand, I’m Modern Orthodox, my children will be Modern Orthodox, and my grand children will be too. That’s just the facts of the matter. True, MO is as fundamentalist as the Chareidim are, but MO are much more tolerant of dissent and individuality, life under the Chareidim will be much worse. So it’s within my interest for Modern Orthodoxy to be successful, and not be overtaken by the Chareidim.
So what to do? Expose Modern Orthodoxy for the intellectual fraud that it is? Or boost it in the hopes that somehow things will get resolved somehow oneday? Oh well, it seems there is no good solution to my conundrum. Luckily, this is only the blog world. In real life, there are no such problems.
Aug 9, 2007 2:26 PM
Top 10 reasons why I am a Jew (and my children too)_
1. My mother was Jewish
2. My father was Jewish
3. I went to a Jewish day school
4. All my childhood friends were Jewish
5. I went to a Jewish high school
6. All my high school friends were Jewish
7. I went to a college with a large Jewish population
8. All my college friends were Jewish
9. All the people I dated were Jewish
10. My spouse is Jewish
11. I live in a Jewish community
12. All my friends are Jewish
13. My children are Jewish
14. My children go to a Jewish day school
15. All my children’s childhood friends are Jewish
16. My children will go to a Jewish high school
17. All my children's highschool friends will be Jewish
18. My children will go to a college with a large Jewish population
19. All my children's college friends will be Jewish
20. All the people that my children will date will be Jewish
21. All my children's spouses will be Jewish
22. All my children will live in a jewish community
23. All my children's friends will be Jewish
24. All my children's children will be Jewish
Aug 8, 2007 10:08 AM
Top Ten Reasons Why Dennis Prager’s Article Isn’t Very Good_
Top Ten Reasons Why I Am A Jew
By Dennis Prager, in Moment magazine
1. The Jews are the Chosen People. There is no other rational explanation for the centrality of the Jewish people in history and in the world today. Even anti-Semites—indeed, especially anti-Semites— recognize the pivotal role of this tiny group of people on the world stage. That is why “world Jewish conspiracy” is such a common phrase, while one never hears of “a world Chinese conspiracy” or any other group’s “world conspiracy.” If we are not the Chosen People, there is little compelling reason to raise one’s children as Jews. After Auschwitz, and with significant parts of the Muslim world today advocating another Holocaust, it takes a powerful reason to do so.
This is awful. If we are not Chosen by God, there’s no reason to be Jewish? So the Jewish people have nothing to be proud of, nothing to offer, except for the fact that God chose us? No reason to be Jewish? Ridiculous.
2. Just as people need an instruction manual for a camera, they need an instruction manual on how to lead a good, holy and meaningful life. Judaism provides the best one ever written: the Torah.
I don’t need an instruction manual for my camera, in fact, I haven’t even read it. Aperture priority F8, ISO 64, and press the button. What else do you need to know? But seriously, this is really kiruv clowny. The Torah is so infinitely malleable that without a Mesorah it can (and does) mean anything. So maybe Prager means the Mesorah? Could be. But how do we know the Mesorah is the best manual ever written? Only by looking back at history, and at our current communities. So really the point here is that we have faith in the Torah because we see it works well, by anyone’s standards. We have committed fewer atrocities and contributed more to the world than any other nation, relative to our size.
3. The Torah is a divine document. No book comes close in influencing the world and changing the way human beings behave and think. “Divine” means that God is, ultimately, the Torah’s author. Whether it was given all at once, whether it was dictated word for word, whether it was divinely edited from documents—none of that matters.
Ha, I like his little DH disclaimer: It doesn’t matter whether the Torah was ‘Divinely Edited’ from ‘Documents’. And how does he know God was the author? He doesn’t say. Shame.
4. Understood properly and lived authentically, Judaism is a religion of moderation. Judaism’s approach to animals, for example, teaches reverence for them to the point of including a day of rest for them in the Ten Commandments. Yet it also teaches that human life is infinitely more valuable: humans, not animals, are created in the image of God.
Again, this is only true through looking at history. Taken at face value, any religion can be lived in moderation, or lived in an extremist way. The reason we know that Judaism encourages moderation whereas Islam encourages evil extremism is not through reading their respective texts, or studying their laws, but looking in real life at how their respective adherents behave. If all Orthodox Jews were violent psychopaths, and Moslems were peace loving tikkun olam’nicks, then Prager wouldn’t have a good point here.
5. Judaism provides immense joy. No religion provides such continuous joy-filled moments as Judaism. I am referring to the weekly celebration of Shabbat and the frequent holidays. Every week I look forward to Shabbat in a way unknowable to non-Jews or Jews who do not celebrate the Sabbath.
Is this really true? Do Orthodox Jews enjoy their religion more than other people? I like Shabbat as much as the next guy, but the combined weight of Halachot, davening, learning etc makes me think that Christians could be pretty happy too.
6. Judaism provides meaning. What could be more meaningful than being chosen by God to bring humanity to Him and His moral values? Meaning is the greatest human need, even greater than sex. There are people who live without sex and yet lead happy lives. But no person who lives without meaning has a happy life.
I think it’s true that if you feel you have a meaningless life then you’ll probably be less happy. But plenty of things provide meaning, and plenty of religions too. I don’t think devout Christians are lacking meaning. The better point is that Judaism practically invented the concept of meaning.
7. Judaism provides community. Whether on Shabbat or on holidays, whether in joy—the birth of a child, a wedding—or in crisis or mourning, our religion does not allow us to be alone.
Hello? Other religions provide community too you dope. And lifecycle rituals.
8. Judaism is uniquely preoccupied with good and evil. I have the utmost respect for Christians as the people who made America the greatest country in world history. But their religions are concerned mainly with faith and salvation, and Islam is focused on submission to Allah. Both groups theologically divide the world into the faithful—“dar al-Islam” in Islam and the “saved” in Christianity—and the unfaithful. Judaism, by contrast, divides the world according to moral categories: those who do good and those who do evil. Thus, as the Torah tells us, “the good of all the nations have a portion in the world to come.”
Somewhat true, but not completely. Many Christian groups have now accepted that you can be saved by good deeds, rather than faith in Jesus.
9. Judaism is concerned with the present world. Though Judaism absolutely affirms the afterlife (it is axiomatic that if there is a just God, there is an afterlife), the Hebrew Bible says nothing about what happens to us after death. The moment religion dabbles in the afterlife, it begins to ignore the evils of this life and can even foment evil. The theology of Muslim terrorists and their supporters, for example, rests on a preoccupation with heavenly rewards and a consequent disdain for this life. As Hamas frequently says, “We love death as much as the Jews love life.”
Agreed.
10. Judaism allows, even encourages, a Jew to argue with God. The very name of the Jewish people, “Israel,” means “wrestle with God;” the word “Islam,” to provide a counter example, means “submission” (to God).
Dumb. Who argues with God? (Apart from Avraham and Moshe of course). And there are plenty of texts in Judaism which stress that the ideal is to be an ‘Eved Hashem’.
All in all, not a very good article. I could (and have) written it way better. And I wouldn't call it 'Why I am a a Jew', but rather 'Why I think Judaism is great', or something like that. What a wasted opportunity.
Aug 8, 2007 10:08 AM
RYBS: The meaning of life is Tikkun Olam_
RYBS isn't always easy to understand, but look carefully at what he writes about the meaning of life for the 'Halakhic Man' (as opposed to the mystical-religious person, who is interested in "getting closer to / becoming one with God"), and remember that according to RYBS the 'Halachic Man' is the ideal:
"This longing for creation and the renewal of the cosmos is embodied in all of Judaism's goals. And if at times we raise the question of the ultimate aim of Judaism, of the telos of the Halakhah in all its multifold aspects and manifestations, we must not disregard the fact that this wondrous spectacle of the creation of worlds is the Jewish people's eschatological vision, the realization of all its hopes."
Wow! The ultimate aim of Judaism is the creation of worlds! Not 'being one with God'. Not 'serving God'. Not 'learning Torah and doing Mitzvot'. No.
The ultimate aim of Judaism and all Halachah is the 'Creation of Worlds'!
So what does that mean? Clearly, it's some kind of Tikkun Olam type thing. Creating a better world. Now I'm going to have go and re-read Halachic Man.
Aug 7, 2007 11:29 AM
The Documentary Hypothesis ‘Aha’ Moment_
In the past, I have avoided talking about the Documentary Hypothesis, mostly because I don’t know much about it. Plus, with all the never ending arguments between Anonymous and Anonymous, it got a bit tiring.
However now I’m thinking that the DH is actually one of the few interesting topics left to discuss, precisely because there’s no clear answer there. I mean, when it comes to Science and Torah questions, the truth about the truth is pretty obvious. Same thing with proofs for God and Torah MiSinai, and most of the other topics we have been discussing.
But when it comes to the DH, there’s no clear cut answer. The DH itself has some issues, and it can be quite fascinating looking at the classical meforshim, and then at the DH, and seeing how each one has a different peshat in the Text. So, I’m going to try and post more DH vs. Meforshim posts, and see where it goes.
I have the JPS chumash now, but I’ll need some other Meforshim (classical and DH style). Although I learned in Yeshivah for many years, I only ever learnt Baba Kamah, Baba Basrah, Babah Meztiah and Kiddushin, over and over and over and over. I don’t remember ever opening a Chumash (and of course not a Nach). So my knowledge of the classical meforshim on Chumash is non existent. Any recommendations?
To start things off, I’ll post a little shtickle on last week’s sedrah, Ekev. When Moshe is recounting back the events of the past 40 years to the Bnei Yisrael, he mentions Dasan and Aviram, but doesn’t mention Korach. Why the strange omission? Everyone notices this. The classical meforshim say that it was in order not to embarrass Bnei Korach, who were still alive. OK, sounds nice. The DH however says that the stories of Korach and Daasan VeAviram were really two completely separate stories, which got mixed together later in Bamidbar. The Deuteronomic author however had no knowledge of the Korah story, hence he only mentions Dasan veAvirahm.
Which explanation sounds more plausible? I think it’s impossible to say, based on one small thing. You really have to cover the whole of chumash, and see the entire scope of what the meforshim say, and then see the entire scope of what the DH says, and then see which one is more plausible overall.
One interesting thing that a couple of the very knowledgeable skeptics reported (Mis-nagid and S) is that when you study Chumash in depth and notice all the issues, and then you see the DH, you get a lot of ‘Aha’ moments, when suddenly everything falls neatly into place and it all makes a lot of sense. Or at least a lot more sense than it previously did.
So will we be getting any ‘Aha’ moments? That would be nice. So far all I have is ‘Oh no’ moments.
Aug 6, 2007 10:13 PM
_
I wrote this post on my new Zonbu. It totally rocks! $250 for a fully featured Linux PC, or less with a data plan. And it comes loaded with office applications and everything else. Welcome to the future of computing.
Aug 6, 2007 10:13 PM
Heretics of the month: American Jewish Life Magazine_
_I have been reading an excellent new Jewish magazine called ‘American Jewish Life’. I have read the past few issues and find it eminently readable, kind of like a Jewish people magazine. But it’s not all just untzniusdick pictures of pretty Jewish female celebrities; the magazine also runs in depth articles on various topics of interest.
One of the regular features is ‘Heretic of the month’, past issues have covered Spinoza, Frank, Shabtai Tzvi and similar. The editor in chief is apparently an Orthodox Jew, who attends a Chareidi style shul and I hear that the magazine is distributed in Orthodox Jewish shuls. Why an OJ would publish a 'Heretic of the Month' feature and then distribute it to Orthodox shuls is beyond me. Perhaps he does it as ‘dah mah lehashiv?’ Or maybe in future editions he plans to cover contemporary heretics, as a sort of 'America's Most Wanted' feature. If so, I guess I better be careful.
Aug 5, 2007 12:46 AM
One of my favorite Rabbis gave a drashah over Shabbat where he said that he was worried that Orthodox Judaism was sliding into superstition. After the talk I asked him 'So what's the difference between religion and superstition?' That caught him off guard! He said superstition is granting agency to things that don't have power or don't exist. I said, 'What, you mean like God?'I don't think he liked that.
I think the answer is as follows: Something which has become religion (i.e. fairly old, lots of followers, reasonably 'mainstream' etc) is religion. If it's not religion, but it's still kinda 'magical', we call it superstition. Kinda like the difference between 'religion' and 'cult'.
So is it fair to say Orthodox Judaism is sliding into superstition? Well, I guess so, since there are many superstitious beliefs which were originally not part of OJ which now are. But since this process has been happening since the 12th Century (BCE! hardehar), I think its a bit disingenuous to start complaining about it now.
Aug 5, 2007 12:46 AM
By a bizarre co-incidence, I happened to randomly open the sefer 'Rosh Amanah' (Principles of Faith) by Isaac Abravanel (translated by Menachem Kellner), and saw that the Abravanel has quite a few objections to the Rambam's Ikkarim too. In fact, some of the objections I raised below were said by the Abravanel! Boruch Shekivanti. Here they are (as delineated by Kellner) with my notes:
1. An ikar implies something on which the object depends for it's existence. Many of the ikkarim are not foundational in this way.
[This is the crux of the discussion, which of the ikkarim are truly mandatory and which are merely 'nice to have'.]
2. Ikkar 5 is a Halachah, not a principle.
[I said this!]
3. Why should praying to an intermediary (Ikkar 5) cause the Torah to collapse?
[True. In fact we even have some prayers (Sholom Aleichem) which are directed to Angels.
4. Why should the Torah not change (Ikkar 9) if those who are guided by it change
[I said this!]
5. R Hillel denied Moshiach (Sanhedrin 99a) so how could this be an ikkar?
[I have seen people say that once it was 'paskened' it becomes an ikkar. This leads into the whole discussion of whether you can have a psak in ideology]
6. Why should denying Techiyas Hamaysim (Ikkar 13) cause the Torah to collapse?
[True. Plus it makes no sense, and was clearly invented late.]
7. How can Techiyas Hamaysim (Ikkar 13) and Moshiach (Ikkar 12) be ikkarim, since after they happen there will be no need to believe in them?
[That's kind of a strange objection. Not sure about this one.]
8. Why didn't the Rambam include the Ikkar that the shechinah dwells amongst the people of Israel through the Torah?
[We don't need more ikkarim!]
9. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in Creation?
[I always thought that was included in 1. But it does deserve it's own seperate ikkar. After all, if God exists but didn't create (or cause) the Universe, then you don't neccessarily owe him anything.]
10. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in the literal miracles described in the Torah?
[Possibly this is included in 8. Alternatively, the Rambam didn't necessarily believe in Miracles].
11. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in ancestral tradition ?
[Unclear what this means. The Mesorah maybe?]
12. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in free will?
[Good question. I guess its somewhat impied by ikkar 11 but still.]
13. Why didn't the Rambam include belief that God acts by His Will?
[That's the most important aspect of God, that He has will. Since the Rambam details a few other ikkarim about God, I think it's a good question]
14. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in many more of God's attributed. Why did he limit his ikkarim to 13?
[13 is a magic number?]
15. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in the end of man and the survival of the soul?
[I asked this. He includes techiyas hamayism but doesn't include olam habah.]
16. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in the urri ve'tumim?
[Similar to 10.]
17. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in [the efficacy of] prayer and the other principles as delineated by Crescas?
[Not sure what Crescas's principles were]
18. Rambam shouldn't have counted belief in God as a commandment [if it was in the ikkarim]
[Not sure what he means here. Possibly that something can either be an ikkar or a commandment, but not both].
19. Beliefs cannot be commanded, yet two of the ikkarim [God's existence & Unity] are commandments.
[Like I always say, how can you legislate beliefs?]
20. Why didn't the Rambam include belief in all the ikkarim he laid out in Hilchos Yesodai Hatorah?
21. Alternatively, why did Rambam include things in Hilchos Yesodai Hatorah which are not really ikkarim?
22. Why did the Rambam count the first two ikkarim as commandments, but not the rest?
Aug 2, 2007 11:16 PM
My new approach: Ikkarim Free Modern Orthodoxy_
_I keep hearing how Modern Orthodoxy combines the best of the secular world with the best of the Orthodox world. Well, that’s just not true. And not only is it not true, it’s not even possible. Because the best of both worlds would completely contradict each other. In truth Modern Orthodoxy combines the most compatible bits of the secular world with as lightweight as possible version of Orthodoxy.
And that's just not good enough.
In all the lists I see, where people detail out the differences between MO and UO, they always miss out the most important one of all. For example, one of my Rabbis gives the following list of distinctions:
Zionism
MOs are supposedly Zionists, UOs are not. But this is a myth these days, especially in the US. Most centrist Chareidim in the US actually have pretty (politically) right wing attitudes towards Israel. And many MOs have pretty liberal views. In fact I bet you had more US Chareidi support for non disengagement from Gaza than you had from LW MOs. True, the Chareidim don’t say the tefilah for the medinah, or daven Hallel on Yom Ha’atzmaut, but so what? No biggie. I don’t see any real difference here anymore.
Secular Knowledge
The MOs make a big deal of accepting secular knowledge and being intellectually honest. My Rabbi quotes the famous Rambam ‘accept the truth from wherever it comes’. But we all know this is total bull. My Rabbi ain't accepting the Documentary Hypothesis anytime soon. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that educated MO Rabbis are in fact usually more intellectually dishonest than Chareidi Rabbis. This is because Chareidi Rabbis are ignorant of anything outside their 4 amos, they are basically tinokim shenishbuuh. MO Rabbis however are educated, and do know about the outside world, but they (generally) lack the intellectual honesty to full engage with it. There are a couple of exceptions, and some of these exceptions are my Rabbis (boruch Hashem for that!), but by and large it’s true.
The Chareidim also put more official emphasis on All Torah All The Time. But in the US we all know this is bs. If you are a successful professional and look and act Chareidi, they’re gonna love and respect you in Chareidi land, no problem at all. After all, they need you to support the Kollels.
Women’s Rights
Okay, so there’s a genuine difference with this one. MO is far more accommodating to women. But I’m not a woman, and my wife doesn’t care. So no big deal for me.
Gay Rights
Ha, fooled you, nothing doing. No difference at all. Not in the slightest.
Halachah / Chumrah
MO communities tend to be more lax, but there is no official doctrine about this. You could probably get away with more laxity in a MO shul and not feel pressured, whereas in a Chareidi community there would be more pressure to confirm to the prevailing norms (in dress, kashrut, entertainment options etc). However this is only true of hard core Chareidi communities. Most normal Chareidi shuls I think would be fairly liberal. However this is not the case with Schools. The pressure to conform there is immense.
OK, so there are some differences here, especially the last one. But is that it? Chareidim are more strict, and MOs are more lax? Well, sociologists do say that in every religion you always find two basic subgroups – those looking for an intense religious experience, and those looking for religion ‘lite’. So that could be it.
But I want to suggest something more:
In Modern Orthodoxy, you don’t have to believe in the ikkarim.
In fact I know this to be true. They don’t say it officially, but in private they almost always do. I have asked various MO Rabbis about the ikkarim, and have heard the following responses:
The ikkarim are just sociological
The ikkarim are just boundary setting devices
You don’t have to believe in all the ikkarim, just God and some concept of Yetzias Mitzrayim / Mattan Torah
As long as you don’t categorically deny the ikkarim you are okay.
I even heard Rav Willig speak a couple years ago and he said the main things which denote Orthodoxy are Shabbat and Kashrut. Not a word about the ikkarim. Someone later claimed he asked Rav Willig and Rav Willig said well of course he assumed the ikkarim too, but that’s just baloney.
Of course there are differences between RW and LW MO here. But an educated LW MO Rabbi isn’t going to insist on the ikkarim.
And quite rightly so, because the ikkarim are mostly bogus.
Let’s have a look at the ikkarim and see how bogus they are:
1. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is the Creator and Ruler of all things. He alone has made, does make, and will make all things.
2. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is One. There is no unity that is in any way like His. He alone is our G-d He was, He is, and He will be.
3. I believe with perfect faith that G-d does not have a body. physical concepts do not apply to Him. There is nothing whatsoever that resembles Him at all.
4. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is first and last.
Okay, so these sound fairly reasonable, except for the fact that nobody knows anything about God, and Rambam himself holds that you can’t say anything about God. So basically this boils down to believing that some kind of something which we call God created the Universe for a purpose. Obviously there’s no evidence or proof for that, but that has always been a fundamental tenet of Judaism, and I’m ok with believing (or hoping) that’s true. But to go to any great lengths about what God is and what God is not is just fantasy.
5. I believe with perfect faith that it is only proper to pray to G-d. One may not pray to anyone or anything else.
OK, that’s fine. It’s not a belief though, more like a Halachah.
6. I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true.
That’s a stupid one. Why on earth should we believe that? What about false prophets? So I guess he means all the words of the true prophets are true. Well duh, anyone can agree to that: All true prophets speak truth. Sure. Whatever.
7. I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses is absolutely true. He was the chief of all prophets, both before and after Him.
Feh. We have no real idea what the prophecy of Moses was, so what exactly are we believing in here? A pointless ikkar.
8. I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moses.
This is really a stupid one. Not even the Rambam himself believes this one. He knew there were mistakes in the text. And many Rishonim held there were bits added later. Plus since when is there any promise from Hashem that the Torah would always remain perfect? How can one even make an ikkar like this? Plenty of TSBP was lost, and that’s even more important than TSBK. Where's his ikkar that we have the perfect TSBP? This is just nonsense, and is only in there to counter Moslem claims that Moshe forged part of the Torah.
9. I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed, and that there will never be another given by G-d.
Feh. Who says? And if God ‘changes His mind’, we’re not going to believe Him? Again, this is just anti-Moslem polemics.
10. I believe with perfect faith that G-d knows all of man's deeds and thoughts. It is thus written (Psalm 33:15), "He has molded every heart together, He understands what each one does."
Okay, this is basically discounting the Deist position, and claiming that God (whatever the heck that means) is involved and knows what we are up to. I am okay with believing (hoping) that.
11. I believe with perfect faith that G-d rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress Him.
This is a tricky one, because where does the reward come? Not in this world, that’s for sure. And the next life that we live in remains to be seen. And there isn't even an ikkar about Olam Habah! (Just Techiyat Hamaysim which is not neccessarily the same thing at all) But if you want an Omni-benevolent God, you gotta have this one or else the whole thing doesn’t make sense. I guess I would have to accept this one, and hope that the whole Olam Habah thing makes some sense.
12. I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. How long it takes, I will await His coming every day.
Eh. Moshiach was an invented concept after Israel lost its kingdom. And even then the concept was only that a new Davidic King would one day rise again. All the crazy Moshiach mythology only arose later, due to thousands of years of oppression. It would be nice to think Moshiach will come, but I’m not holding my breath. And neither are most people I know.
13. I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back to life when G-d wills it to happen.
Feh. Stupid. Techiyat Hamaysim is probably the dumbest one of all (maybe that’s why he left it to the end). Nobody even believed in Techiyat Hamaysim until Doniel, the concept hadn’t been invented yet. Plus, it makes no sense at all. What if you are cremated? Born mentally disabled? Became mental later on in life? Dumb, dumb and dumb. I would like to believe in some kind of after life, but not a physical resurrection. Probably Rambam didn't even mean a physical resurrection anyway, since he himself holds that Olam Habah is intellectual. He only had to invent his crazy 'temporary physical resurrection' to satisfy the kannoim.
Even more bizarre than what the Rambam put in, is what he left out!
There’s no ikkar about believing in the Mesorah
There’s no ikkar about believing in Chazal
There’s no ikkar about believing in Torah Shebaal Peh
These are the fundamental ikkarim of Orthodoxy, and the Rambam doesn’t even mention them!
The only reasonable conclusion here is that the ikkarim are totally bogus. And according to some great Rabbanim, the Rambam himself rejected them later in life.
So this is my position, and my approach: Modern Orthodoxy without the ikkarim.
Minimum belief in some type of ‘God’ (doesn’t mean much since nobody can comprehend what that is anyway – at most it just means the Universe isn’t random) and that the Torah was ‘Divinely Inspired’ is all you need. More importantly, a commitment to Halachah (which isn’t even a belief per se). And that’s it.
Is this revolutionary? Not really, it’s pretty much what most rational, LW Modern Orthodox types believe anyway. Will this harm Modern Orthodoxy? Maybe, but what choice do we have? It’s not like there’s any other approach here. We can't believe in stupidity. Unless we're stupid, which we're not. Plus plenty of MOs go off the derech anyway.
Will I keep this quiet? Not really. I’m not going to go into shul and start shouting ‘The Ikkarim are bogus!’, but if anyone asks me if I believe that the ikkarim are true, my answer is that they don’t look true at all. Do I categorically deny them? No of course not. Anything is always possible, even the ikkarim. But only a fool believes in something 100% without any evidence.
The Ikkarim are bogus. Let’s just admit that (LW) MO doesn't need the ikkarim. Will this freak out the Chareidim? Probably. Will it cause a major split in Klal Yisrael? Hopefully not. Is it sustainable? Hopefully.
Aug 2, 2007 8:32 PM
Avraham Fried: I'm no longer Chareidi!_
So the Gedolim banned Avraham Fried, but he's still doing concerts. This can only mean that he is no longer Chareidi. This is very similar to another recent ban situation, where the Gedolim banned certain books, but the author kept on writing them, and had to become MO.
Based on that other case, I predict the following:
1. Avraham Fried will change his name to Abe Fried
2. He will get dropped by Galpaz
3. Yashar will open a Music Division to promote him
4. Abe will do a double bill with Debbie Friedman.
Aug 2, 2007 7:32 PM
Mattisyahu: I'm no longer a Lubab!_
The Forward reports that Mattisyahu has rejected Lubavitch, saying:
"the more I’m learning about other types of Jews, I don’t want to exclude myself. I felt boxed in.”
Wow. Sounds like he's going off the derech with an attitude like that.
Next Up: Avraham Fried says he's no longer Chareidi!
Aug 2, 2007 7:32 PM
Holy Moly! Feldman is the next Slifkin! (from a blog POV, I don't mean to compare someone who marries out with someone who thinks the Mabul might have been local)
The Feldman controversy has generated a ton of articles on the Internet and also in the real world. This article from Allan Nadler has some great lines and shtuchs. I like this line, on why Feldman is no Spinoza:
Spinoza understood all too well the heteronymous nature of religious values, just as he insisted on his autonomous right to reject those values and the authorities who vigilantly maintain them. He certainly didn’t expect anyone in Amsterdam’s Shearith Israel Synagogue to sponsor a Kiddush to celebrate the publication of the “Theological-Political Treatise.”
Then we have Rabbi Norman Lamm's article which has this line:
If Modern Orthodoxy is responsible for Goldstein and Amir, then Harvard is responsible for the Unabomber
Best of all, the Jewish Week has an expose which shows Feldman was never deliberately cut from his alumni picture at all! The photographer simply couldn't fit everyone into the pitcure. And even worse, Feldman knew that before the NYT article was published. And even worse, the NYT knew it too!
Note to photographer: Next time, bring a wide angle lens.
Aug 2, 2007 4:19 PM
Vindication!!!!! The Ikkarim are NOT the Ikkarim_
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/08/marc-b-shapiro-forgery-and-halakhic.html
"A few weeks ago R. Fisher declared that he believes the Rambam abandoned his system of 13 Principles, the proof being that they are never mentioned as a unit in the Mishneh Torah"
Told you so.
Aug 2, 2007 4:19 PM
Those darn skeptics can make anything sound bad.._
Aug 2, 2007 4:19 PM
In the academic world, Orthodox Judaism is often called ‘Rabbinic Judaism’. When I fist encountered this phrase, it struck me as odd, and rather heretical. We all know Judaism comes from God, so what’s Rabbinic Judaism?! Now of course I realize that this name is very apt.
Everything we know about the Mesorah and about Halachah comes through Chazal. There is very little information about what came before Chazal, except what’s written in Tenach, and even that was somewhat selected by Chazal and their pre-cursors in the Anshei Knesset Hagdolah. Without Chazal, Orthodox Judaism as we know it falls apart. Without Chazal, Halachah goes out the window. Without Chazal we are essentially Kaarites at best.
The greatest and most significant contribution of Chazal to Judaism was Torah SheBaal Peh (TSBP). The standard argument for the validity of TSBP runs like this: The Torah contains many omissions and contradictions; it therefore couldn’t possibly have been God’s final and only word. Therefore, there must have been an accompanying Oral Torah which explains the Written Torah in more detail.
Of course the skeptics will say that this argument is laughable; the Torah contains omissions and contradictions precisely because it is an evolved document, sourced from many different places over hundreds of years. The Oral Law was a similarly evolved tradition, which grew (in part) to explain away the contradictions and problems with the written text. The concept of Oral Law is pure Rabbinical fantasy.
In Tenach itself, there is basically no mention of TSBP. There is even only the slenderest of supports for the whole idea of Rabbinic Authority. For example, the pasuk which says that if you have a difficult case (seems to imply a legal case) you should go the judges “in that day”. The real support for the concept of TSBP comes from ... TSBP. Yes, rather circular I’m afraid.
If all this sounds somewhat kefiradick, I don’t think it is. The Chareidim more than any other group within Orthodoxy, seem to appreciate this fact. For example, this is from a speech at the Agudah convention a couple of years ago:
Chazal HaKedoshim – hakatan shebetalmidei Rabbeinu haKadosh mechayeh meisim! If the Gaon says that he could bring down kol galgal hachamah on this table and show it to Aristo – do we have a safek that what Chazal HaKedoshim said is emes? Ra’u mi’sof haolam ve’ad sofo – ain leharher achar divrei haGemara. Our emunah has to be, and will continue to be, that every word of Chazal haKedoshim is emes le’amitoh!
The Chareidim realize that once you reduce Chazal to the status of ordinary people, that puts the whole of Rabbinic Judaism into question. Why? Because ordinary people make mistakes. Ordinary people are influenced by their surroundings. Statistics shows that ordinary people tend to follow the religion they were brought up in (or turn secular) 95% of the time. History shows that ordinary people who lived thousands of years ago were extremely credulous (by our current standards) and accepted the science and religion of their day with nary a critical thought. Actually, just like most people today!
If Chazal are just ordinary people, that puts a major dent in Orthodoxy.
So, according to the Chareidim, Chazal were not ordinary at all. Every single one of Chazal had tremendous Ruach Hakodesh. Every word of Chazal is emes veyatziv. Even the non Torah things they said, like Science, is 100% emes. This is the kind of Emunah a Frum Yid must have (according to the Chareidim). And they’re not that far wrong. This really is the kind of Emunah you would need to sustain a belief in Rabbinic Judaism. Because if the Rabbis are just ordinary people, then really they’re no better than ordinary people today. Rabbi Akivah is no better (or worse) that Rabbi Beryl Wein. Or Rabbi Sherwin Wine. All just ordinary people.
The Modern Orthodox will protest that this argument is flawed. That the reason we trust Chazal is not because they were semi-super-natural beings full of Ruach Hakodesh, who could be Mechaye Meysim at the blink of an eye, but rather because they were ‘closer’ to the original revelation at Har Sinai.
Unfortunately this argument fails from a rational standpoint. In ancient times people were very ignorant of History. There was hardly any academic study of History, no forensic archeology, none of that. We know more reliable information today about the ancient world of 3,000 years ago than people living 2,000 years ago did. We are in fact ‘closer’ to the original revelation time period than Chazal were (from a rational perspective). Given everything we know about the ancient world, there is no reason to think that Chazal had a better grasp on the Mesorah than we do, except for the fact that Chazal say they did. Again, rather circular.
People will argue that there was an unbroken Mesorah from Sinai. But how do we know this? Has History validated an unbroken Mesorah?! Of course not. We only know about the unbroken Mesorah from the Mesorah. Again, completely circular.
Other people will argue that the ‘National Historical Consciousness of an entire people can’t be wrong’. And the answer to that is, 'Yes, it could be wrong'. What else can you reply to an unfounded assertion that ‘X is true’ except to say that ‘X is not true’ ?!
Of course, in the same way that Chareidim have Emunah Peshutah that Chazal had 100% Ruach hakodesh all the time, the Modern Orthodox can have Emunah Peshutah that even though Chazal were regular people, and got their Science wrong, they still got the Mesorah right, and the whole concept of Torah SheBaalPeh really did come from God, and wasn’t just something that evolved through Chazal.
But do the Modern Orthodox really have this Emunah Peshutah? I think the RW MOs do, but then they’re really just Chareidim who went to YU. But the average MO? I don’t think so. From my conversations within the MO community, most people seem to accept God’s existence, and even Har Sinai and TSBK, but then they’ll say things like ‘But the Rabbis went too far’. This explains why people in MO are fairly lax on derabonnons.
I was talking to an MO Rabbi last week about people in MO who lack Emunah in the Ikkarim. He said that if they were keeping Halachah, he assumed that really they do believe, even if they themselves say they don’t. Personally I think it’s the exact opposite. Even the people who say they do believe, don’t really believe that much, when you dig into it with them. I could probably get any regular MO person to admit to that, given some time.
Aug 1, 2007 1:42 PM
_Rabbinical "Ban" on Hassidic Music Concerts
17 Av 5767, 01 August 07 08:00
by Hillel Fendel
Hassidic music stars Avraham Fried and Yaakov Shwekey are to perform in Jerusalem before over 10,000 Thursday night - but Rabbi Elyashiv, the Gerrer Rebbe and others say it's forbidden to participate or attend events of that nature.
Flashy posters all over Jerusalem and elsewhere advertise a high-powered Hassidic music concert scheduled for Thursday evening at Teddy Stadium. It features two of the genre's greatest stars, Fried and Shwekey, as well as guest appearances by Aharon Razel and the up-and-coming Elad Shaar. Called "L'Chaim in Jerusalem," the event commemorates the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and will feature an extra-large orchestra.
A damper was placed on the event, however, in the form of a grave rabbinic ban appearing in the hareidi-religious press. The ban is signed by leading rabbis including Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the Gerrer and Bezler Rabbis, Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, Rabbi Shmuel HaLevy Vozner, Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg, and more. .
The ads state: "We trembled at hearing about the terrible breach in our camp of 'music evenings' and 'concerts' in which musicians sing before men and women sitting together, Heaven forefend, and even not together. All Torah leaders have in the past clearly forbidden these events, even when men and women are separate."
The rabbis say the ban applies to men, women and children and of course the performers. Newspapers are not permitted to advertise these events, according to the ad, and musicians who sing "in front of men and women together" must not be invited to sing at other events.
A source close to one of the above rabbis told Arutz-7 he was unsure of the grounds for the ban. He opined that it could be because of the mixing of the genders outside the event, but added, "This is very puzzling, because why then is there a difference between performers - who are penalized only if they sing before a mixed crowd - and the general public, which is forbidden to attend under all circumstances?" Another source said that it was possibly the rock-and-roll atmosphere prevalent at events of this nature that might be the problem, though this was not mentioned in the ban.
One source said he believes one of the rabbis signed this ban several years ago, and that it was not presented to him again. Others expressed a lack of confidence in the entire system of "signed rabbinic decisions," in that it is not clear how the situation was presented to the rabbis. There have even been cases of rabbis who said their names were "signed" on various announcements without their permission.
"It is known that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein [the pre-eminent Torah authority in the U.S. in the 20th century - ed.] permitted events of this nature if the proceeds were for charity," a source close to one of the rabbis said, "as is the case in Thursday's concert, so I'm not sure how to understand this."
Producer Moshe Ben-Zimra told the NRG website in response: "Men and women will be totally separated at the event, including separate entrances, and everything is taking place under the supervision of great rabbis. I greatly respect the rabbis who signed the ban, but they were misled by their underlings whose purpose is simply to liquidate Hassidic music in Israel. The rabbis don't realize that this event is kosher and maintains the laws of modesty. Over 10,000 people have already bought tickets, and they can rely upon the Torah rabbis who support separate and modest events of this nature."
Aug 1, 2007 1:42 PM
Kool & The Gang vs. The Ramchal: Is MO is the way to go?_
Kool
Cherish the life you live, cherish the love you have, the next life that we live in remains to be seen.
Ramchal
This world was created as a test for the world to come, so that your reward in the world to come shouldn’t be ‘na’aamah de’kisufah’ (bread of shame). You should spend your life trying to attain extreme levels of kedushah and perishut so that you will get the ultimate reward in the next world.
Who is right? Should we focus on this world or the next? Isn’t this the most awesome question on which your whole life turns?
So what’s the answer? Seems to me that whenever you have a safek you should try and be yotzeh lechol hadeos. This is why (LW) Modern Orthodoxy is the best way to be. You can have a good bit of secular culture and can lead basically a fairly normal life, but you also do the basics of Judaism too.
Of course if Mormonism is the correct answer, then you’re screwed.
But, life is short and we’re all gonna die anyway so it’s probably not worth spending too much time worrying about it. If God exists and if He is Omni-benevolent, he shouldn’t really blame you for not being able to figure it all out before you die. And if He doesn’t exist nothing really matters anyway so who cares. And if He does exist but isn’t Omni-benevolent then we’re all really screwed no matter what we do.
So maybe neither Kool nor the Ramchal are correct. Maybe it's as someone recently said: Life is a sexually transmitted condition with a 100% fatality rate.
Tzarich Iyun.
