The mesorah makes a lot of sense to me. There are people that I know are truly pious, wholesome and sincere who testified the same about their teachers and parents. I have enough to go on from knowing the likes of Rabbis Gettinger, Fendel, Wehl (rebbi in HANC) Wahrman (rebbi in HANC), Eisemann, Tzuriel to know that they truly and without any schemes or agenda hold 100% by this stuff. Their holding by it is clear evidence that their forbears held by it. They speak of their teachers as having been on a higher and more intense madrega. These teachers include the likes of the Chazon Ish, R Aharon Kotler, Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rav Kook and the Ponovezher Rav.
Now you don't have to believe that these teachers were "perfect" to believe that they were great human beings and noble bearers of the mesorah. As an aside, no matter what taanos one has against R Soloveitchik's hashkafos, it is hard not to derive chizuk in emuna from him (in a way that I cannot from the heimishers) By that I mean, here is a man who had nothing at all do to with all the phoney baloney heimishe shtick of today (or yesterday) and yet, there was nothing in his life that drove him the way limud hatorah did (I witnessed this personally). why?? he wasn't after a rich father in law from boro park. he also didn't have to make his living with this stuff. nor vos, he actually believed in this stuff!. He is also known to have been of impeccable ethical standards and quite a baal chesed. Why?? He actually believed in this stuff. For me this is huge, pointing to the fact that this yiddishkeit thing was very real for him. Ki hem chayenu!
These people believed in this stuff with such a reality. While we have no way of measuring the sincerity level of goyish religious leaders, it is hard to find a consistent pattern or mesorah of non jewish or non frum leaders with a record of tzidkus such as we find by our own. I have no doubt in my mind of the purity of spirit of R' Chatzfkel Levenshtein, the Chofetz Chaim, R Elchonon Wassermann, or the Satmar Rav. I am in awe and esteem, of the way they lived their lives, of their purity, their holiness and their sincerity. All this is based on a combination of stuff I have heard and read (many sources, cross checked and verified). Tiny example: Rabbi Sholom Gold knew the Satmar Rav and told me incredible things about his tzidkus . This is "mesiach lefi tumo" as lauding the SR does not serve R Gold's agenda at all. Similarly, the non frum yiddish author Chaim Grade wrote amazing stuff about the depth of mind and sensitivity of spirit the Chazon Ish. I have such an emunas chachomim in these men and everything they represented. I learned shoulder to shoulder with yungerleit in the Mir with nothing at all driving them other than yedias toras hashem. (of course there were also a cast of characters who passed their days smoking and going in and out of the beis medrash with nonsense. but so what? the r'ayah is not from them!) In the same beis medrash sat R Chaim Shmuelevitz's sons (great "guys") and R' Beinish Finkel (RCS's brother in law). R Beinish Z"TL was a tzadik nistar, who, it was found out after his petirah, did amazing chasodim for poshuteh yiden. These guys are the real thing. And they all were in awe and esteem of R Chaim Shmulevitz, who in turn was in esteem of R' Leizer Yudel Finkel, son of the Alter (rebbe of e.g. Rabbi Ruderman, whom I felt I could tell was the real thing). He was also a mekurav of Rav Kook and the Gerer Rebbe in Yerushalayim, and was the father of much of the litvishe derech in mussar and hashkafa. To me, this network of shleimim is so incredibly tight and impenetrable. Also, the beliefs, traditions and attitudes are so deep and tightly held from a group so diverse that it is clear they come from a place many generations back that in turn must have been very pious and intense.
The point of all of the above is that there is a world of frum, pious, amazing yiden out there who are holding fast to the mesorah in a very real way. These people are not morons. They are a fair mix including highly intelligent people who live this thing in a real and beautiful way. I believe that we lose out by not really seeing this in our own lives. We live in a world where yiddishkeit has much more to do with how fancy the bar mitzvah is, how big the brim is, etc. Most of even the positive stuff we see, compared to what I described above, is highly watered down. We are exposed to organizational "leaders" whose role in yiddishkeit is mostly around operational policy, not actual leading by example; i.e. practicing the stuff itself in a way that can be a model for us. In Mir yeshiva, there was no such thing as rebbeim finding reasons to run all over the place doing stuff "more important" than learning. They learned all day because they actually believed in it and couldn't imagine doing anything else. This is a very simple model of leadership. (it is hard to make a case for the more convoluted, more prevalent model we find). I have no doubt that Isaac Stern has a passion for violin. He shows us his passion by playing.
There is a real world of real people who practice this stuff for real. I saw it in my grandfather, in my teachers it existed in our leaders, and it still is alive and well among sincere bnei torah and (what is probably a most underrated group) the vast "middle class" of sincere regular yiden. This beautiful world of beautiful values held by pure people who try their best, and sometimes fail but often don't, is something I yearn to connect to. The value system itself attracts me, and its being based on a long tradition of pure souls who practiced it, makes it all the more compelling.
I don't think this is about sentimentality and nostalgia. Sure there are sentimental feeling about stuff you love. Baseball fans have nostalgia about old games. But they only value these nostalgic feeling because of the underlying love they actually have for the game. The case I tried to make above is about the innate beauty of our values, much in the same way that a passion for art can be justified because of its innate beauty.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI needed to change my comments because of some stupid typos I made.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I agree with R. Aaron's comments. Those Gedolim were truly inspirational figures who exemplified their Mesorah. But that is not the case with most of today's Gedolim. For more, see my blog Emes Ve-Emunah at:
http:// haemtza.blogspot.com/
shkoyach reb harry. just to emphasize, my main point here is to make a case for the vitality of our mesorah today, based on the "gadlus" that does exist out there. maybe you're a "godol"!
ReplyDelete- Aaron
Thanks, Aaron. I realize that your point was not my point. But I used your post as a springboard for mine. In any case I remember meeting you in Chicago at Yitzchak's bar Mitzvah.
ReplyDeleteBe well.
yes, me too! it was a pleasure! (not to mention geshmak)
ReplyDeleteThis is all fine and good. These are truly great men and inspirational figures. And our Torah truly reaches the pinnacle of teaching how men should treat each other. But it tells us little about the accuracy of our mesorah, and can establish little about how much of it is miSinai and how much man-made.
ReplyDelete>Their holding by it is clear evidence that their forbears held by it.<
Their immediate forbears, yes. Their distant forbears? Who knows exactly what the early generations held, and how much may have slowly been added or exxagerated over time. There is no way of knowing. A comparison with the mesorot of other religions and cultures would suggest that much may have been added over time.
A relative of mine once asked me whether I have any doubt that if one of these gedolim were born to, or secretly switched at birth into, a Catholic family, that he would not have become a cardinal or Catholic theologian? Conversely, do you think that if the Pope had secretly been switched at birth with the son of a gadol, he would have become the pope? No, I believe he'd be a rosh yeshiva, just as any one of these gedolim raised as a Christian likely would have become a great Christian.
The single greatest predictor of whether someone winds up a priest, an imam or a rav is his early indoctrination. This is not rocket science. There are a few exceptions, but these only prove the rule. Try explaining to a catholic priest the strength of our mesorah, and he will stare off into space, just as you would at hearing about his "mesorah."
Our emunah is a very personal thing, and exactly what causes us to have it is complex and controversial. I wouldn't go and get too much chizuk from the fact that these luminaries accepted the mesorah. They lost their objectivity at a very young age.
I feel that your main point is "because our teachers and their teachers are so much greater than us, then the mesosarh that they pass on is good enough for us"
ReplyDeleteIm sure that can work for some people, and if it helps them, it is good.
I want to know what you base this statment on:
"While we have no way of measuring the sincerity level of goyish religious leaders, it is hard to find a consistent pattern or mesorah of non jewish or non frum leaders with a record of tzidkus such as we find by our own."
From what do you base this statment on?
Also, unlike Judaism and Jewish based religions (Christianity and Islam), Asian religions and philosophies like buddhism, Taoism and Confucism have no need for a mesoarah, because it is recognices that there is emes spoken in the teachings, no matter who taught them.
Because the Flood is part of our mesorah, and because discussion of the Flood on this blog stopped temporarily while I took the opportunity to converse with a former Yale Egyptologist to whom Rabbi Bechhofer introduced me, I would like to draw readers' attention to the response I have posted on the subject. It can be found under Reb Aaron's December 25th post on emunah.
ReplyDeletemy responses to above reactions to my post:
ReplyDelete"it tells us little about the accuracy of our mesorah, and can establish little about how much of it is miSinai and how much man-made"
- The point is that if these people have integrity, they wouldn't mess with things
"Who knows exactly what the early generations held, and how much may have slowly been added or exxagerated over time. There is no way of knowing. A comparison with the mesorot of other religions and cultures would suggest that much may have been added over time"
- I am not disputing this. I am just saying that I don't suspect a conspiracy theory here
"Our emunah is a very personal thing, and exactly what causes us to have it is complex and controversial. I wouldn't go and get too much chizuk from the fact that these luminaries accepted the mesorah. They lost their objectivity at a very young age.
"
- Fair enough. I am just saying I don't suspect malice
I want to know what you base this statment on:
While we have no way of measuring the sincerity level of goyish religious leaders, it is hard to find a consistent pattern or mesorah of non jewish or non frum leaders with a record of tzidkus such as we find by our own.
- you got me, nothing really. It's just what I believe to be true (meaning, I would bet on it)
"Asian religions and philosophies like buddhism, Taoism and Confucism have no need for a mesoarah, because it is recognices that there is emes spoken in the teachings, no matter who taught them"
- lemmaseh, did it win you over?
Thanks,
Aaron
>"Who knows exactly what the early generations held, and how much may have slowly been added or exxagerated over time. There is no way of knowing. A comparison with the mesorot of other religions and cultures would suggest that much may have been added over time."
ReplyDelete- I am not disputing this. I am just saying that I don't suspect a conspiracy theory here<
Aaron:
Joshua's point is well taken. But I think your response falls into the logical trap created by many kiruv workers. The choice is not between a true mesorah and a fraudulently-concocted one. That is what some kiruv workers would like us to think so they can mislead us.
The other choice is a slowly-evolving, gradually- and innocently-exaggerated and embellished story, each added layer of which is small enough so as to not arouse suspicion of being inauthentic. It's called myth-formation, and it is why the so-called Kuzari argument fails.
I've copied Reb Gottlieb's response to Matan Torah being an example of myth-formation below. In addition to what he says, it is important to know that out of the 15,000 religions in recorded history not one of them claims to have begun through national revelation and the Torah predicts this "'You might inquire about times long past, from the day that God created man on earth, and from one end of heaven to the other: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fires as you have heard and survived?' (Deut. 4:32-33) [Taken from Rabbi Coopersmith's article "Did G-d Speak to Moses on Mt. Sinai?" on simpletoremember.com. see there for his full argument and more]
ReplyDeleteHere's what Reb Gottlieb has to say:
"There are critics who think they can meet this challenge. They think they can explain how a false belief in a national revelation could become accepted. Here is what they propose.
Imagine a group of people on a trek through the desert. Suppose a very shocking, but perfectly natural, event occurs. It could be an earthquake, or a volcanic eruption, or heavy rain in the middle of the summer. The people will be very disoriented by the event. They are likely to interpret it as a sign from the gods. Now as the years go by, the memory of the event grows dim. People add to the story. Perhaps the people heard voices? Perhaps the gods appeared to them? Perhaps the gods wanted something from them? Perhaps the gods told them what they wanted? Gradually the memory of the original natural event is transformed into the story of a national revelation.
The critics say that this sort of transformation has occurred very often. The myths of many ancient peoples were produced by this sort of process. There is no reason, they say, not to suppose that it caused the belief in a national revelation as well. Thus they claim to have a reasonable alternative explanation for the belief.
THE ATTEMPT FAILS (1) – IMPLAUSIBLE
The explanation offered by the critics is not acceptible. There are two reasons. The less important reason is that the explanation is extremely implausible. To see this we need to inspect the details of the explanation. Exactly how is the story first formulated? How is it transmitted to the next generation? What are the stages of the breakdown in memory? Who invents the new details and how are they accepted by others? Now there is one great obstacle to inspecting the details – they are never provided! The suggestion is always a vague “maybe it happened something like this.”
At this point we could say, “If the critics will not provide the details, how can we tell if the explanation is really plausible?” But let’s make an attempt to see how the details could go.
Stage 1: They witness an earthquake. They are frightened and disoriented. They interpret it as a sign from the gods. A sign of what? Do they invent the Ten Commandments on the spot? No – that would be patently implausible. It is supposed to be a gradual transformation over many generations. So on the spot they may say that the gods are angry or something like that. No detailed revelation yet.
Stage 2: They tell the story to the next generation, say during the next 20 years. What story do they tell? Do they start the changes now? Do they introduce voices, or specific demands of the gods, or other details when 80% of the population still remembers the real event? That is not plausible. So they tell their children that there was an earthquake because the gods were angry, nothing more.
Stage 3: A hundred years later there is no one alive who witnessed the event. Do they now introduce voices, or specific demands of the gods, or other details? But they have been telling the real story for a hundred years! How can they add details to a tradition one hundred years old? After all, they know that the new version is false. What would be the point indulging in collective self-deception? This is not plausible.
Another stage 3: A hundred years later someone’s memory fails him and he adds to the original. But then, how do the others react? Do they not know his memory is failing him? Why should anyone accept the new version? This is not plausible.
Another stage 3: A hundred years later the priests create the new story and use their religious authority to get it accepted. This may be the critic’s best shot. But even if we think that the priests were very powerful, this is a bit hard to swallow. After all, they have to oppose a hundred years of consistent tradition. They have to explain how the original experience was forgotten. Although this may be possible, it is not very plausible.
It is very hard to see how the critic will provide a really plausible story. But who knows? Maybe a clever critic with a rich imagination will some day tell such a story. Nevertheless, even if he does, his position is still not acceptable. We now turn to the really conclusive reason that his position fails.
THE ATTEMPT FAILS (2) – NO PARALLELS
The conclusive reason that the critic’s story is unacceptable is this. Even if it were plausible, that does not mean that it really happened that way. Many ideas are intuitively plausible and turn out to be wrong. It was plausible that the earth is flat and stationary. It was plausible that the heavens always existed. It was plausible that no machine heavier than air can fly. All these ideas turned out to be false. So plausibility is not enough. We need reason to think that the gradual transformation really caused the belief in national revelation.
What kind of reason could that be? The very best reason would be direct evidence that it happened that way. We might for example discover the diary of the deceivers that created the story. But that is very unlikely. So we will have to settle for indirect evidence.
The very minimum indirect evidence would be for the critic to find some cases in which we know that this type of transformation did in fact happen. If he can prove that it has happened in some cases, then he can say that it is reasonable to think it happened here too. On the other hand, suppose he cannot find any cases in which his explanation is known to have worked. Then he is saying that something that no one has ever seen happen is the explanation of the belief in Sinai. That is unacceptable.
So here is the challenge to the critic. You say that the belief in Sinai was produced by a gradual transformation of a natural event. And this transformation happened in spite of the fact that the belief in Sinai is a national unforgettable [Reb Gottlieb defines the term "national unforgettable" earlier. It means a national experience that a nation would know about had it happened.] You need to show us somewhere this has happened – somewhere [where] a natural transformation of a natural event produced a false belief in a national unforgettable.
Here the critic meets a major problem. There are no parallel beliefs at all. There are no beliefs in fictitious national unforgettables. So the critic will not be able to show us cases in which his gradual transformation process produced such a belief.
This is surprising, but true. In all the myths that people believed, or still believe, not one is a national unforgettable. The critic cannot show us even one case where his transformation produced such a belief, because there are no such beliefs.
So, as we said at the beginning of this section, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the critic’s explanation has ever worked. Therefore it is unreasonable to think that it is the real explanation in the case of the national revelation at Sinai.
We now have two reasons to disqualify the critic’s explanation as unreasonable. One: the story is not plausible. Two: there are no known cases in which the critic’s explanation has ever worked. But, the critic will ask, surely this kind of gradual transformation does happen. Where else do all the myths come from?
The answer is simple. Those myths never describe a national unforgettable. They always describe events that are forgettable, or were not observed by the whole nation. That is why they can be invented. The fact that people can be convinced to believe forgettables gives no reason at all to think they can be convinced to believe unforgettables.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteEverything you write is honest. I would love to read other things you've written. How can I get to your madrega? (I'm asking this question seriously.)
Dear David:
ReplyDeleteThank you for the quote from Rabbi Gottlieb. Rabbi Gottlieb is a very bright man, and presents what appears on its face to be a good argument.
I have read Rabbi Gottlieb's writings on this topic extensively. Unfortunately, there are a number of flaws in his argument, and ultimately it is unconvincing. As I currently am busy on a number of projects, I do not have the time necessary to take apart his argument and show the flaws, but b'li neder will do so in the near future.
I believe you will see the weaknesses when I do.
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou kindly wrote - "Everything you write is honest. I would love to read other things you've written. How can I get to your madrega? (I'm asking this question seriously.)"
- Thanks for the warm words. I don't see myself as on any kind of madrega. I would love to correspond. Please feel free to write to me at aaronberger@optonline.net
Best -
Aaron
Dear Saul,
ReplyDelete2 questions, if I may:
1. Do you have a "better" mahalach in mesorah that does not have flaws as you have identified in the standard approaches? If yes, please share.
2. If no, is your quest to find a good mahalach, or is your point that there isn;t (or cannot be) a satisfactory mahalach? Another way to put this is: Would you be happier if you identified a satisfactory mahalach, or do you take more pleasure in debunking the unsatisfactory ones? Plesse don't be offended by my question -I am challenging you to answer honsetly, and will not judge you either way.
With friendliness and love,
Aaron
Dear Saul,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"But I think your response falls into the logical trap created by many kiruv workers. The choice is not between a true mesorah and a fraudulently-concocted one. That is what some kiruv workers would like us to think so they can mislead us.
The other choice is a slowly-evolving, gradually- and innocently-exaggerated and embellished story, each added layer of which is small enough so as to not arouse suspicion of being inauthentic. It's called myth-formation, and it is why the so-called Kuzari argument fails."
My response:
- Not sure what you mean by kiruv workers. My personal approach to kiruv is just that, kiruv; i.e. friendliness and love.
- as far as "slowly-evolving, gradually- and innocently-exaggerated and embellished story" are you saying that thiss is happening by naturally, or is it being orchestrated somehow? Just curious what angle you are coming at thiss from. Either way, at least we are mostly on the same page as our forbears. Don't you thin we can also check how off we are by comparing halacha from our times to 100 years ago etc.? Would you say we are so far off, qualitatively, from the way the Rambam codified things? I would havve estimated not.
Thanks-
Aaron
Reb Aaron:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your questions and your tremendous derech eretz.
>1. Do you have a "better" mahalach in mesorah that does not have flaws as you have identified in the standard approaches? If yes, please share.<
I’m not sure I understand the question. If you are asking whether I know of support for our mesorah that is better than R. Gottlieb’s argument, the answer is no. His argument is invalid, and I know of none that is valid. I believe it is a matter of emunah.
>2. If no, is your quest to find a good mahalach, or is your point that there isn;t (or cannot be) a satisfactory mahalach?<
I don’t know of any way to establish the accuracy of the mesorah. And I don’t believe in lying about this fact.
>Another way to put this is: Would you be happier if you identified a satisfactory mahalach, or do you take more pleasure in debunking the unsatisfactory ones? Plesse don't be offended by my question -I am challenging you to answer honsetly, and will not judge you either way.<
You’re asking about my psychological state. I do take pleasure in debunking invalid arguments, as I take pleasure in emes winning out over sheker. If there WAS a valid proof of the accuracy of the mesorah, I would embrace it. Lacking that, I see no value in embracing false proofs as if they were valid. That is sheker.
>You said:
"But I think your response falls into the logical trap created by many kiruv workers. The choice is not between a true mesorah and a fraudulently-concocted one. That is what some kiruv workers would like us to think so they can mislead us.
The other choice is a slowly-evolving, gradually- and innocently-exaggerated and embellished story, each added layer of which is small enough so as to not arouse suspicion of being inauthentic. It's called myth-formation, and it is why the so-called Kuzari argument fails."
My response:
- Not sure what you mean by kiruv workers. My personal approach to kiruv is just that, kiruv; i.e. friendliness and love.<
I meant certain professional kiruv groups. Some specialize in lies and misleading people. I have seen shocking examples. Absolutely shocking.
>as far as "slowly-evolving, gradually- and innocently-exaggerated and embellished story" are you saying that thiss is happening by naturally, or is it being orchestrated somehow? Just curious what angle you are coming at thiss from.<
Mostly naturally. Like a “fish” story—each time it’s told, the fish grows. I think this is why you have nuts running around saying that Chazal knew relativity and quantum mechanics. Some of these nuts teach in our yeshivas.
Also, possibly some manipulation by ideologues, possibly out of pious reasons. Possibly some manipulation in the name of saving Yahadus.
I sometimes wonder about this: Say it’s Ezra’s time. Say the nation has gone through terrible persecution, outlawing of Torah study, exile, destruction of Torahs, massacres, etc. Say much of the Torah has been forgotten, and there are only a few partial scrolls left, and a few elders who remember some of the rest. Say the people are clamoring for their Torah and want to be Jews as in the old times. Say you are Ezra and all you have is scraps. Say you come to believe that unless you “produce” a copy of “the Torah” for the nation, Judaism will end.
Purely a hypothetical. But, if it—or something like it—had happened, what would Ezra—halachically—have been required to do: (a) tell the nation that all he had was scraps, and let Judaism come to an end, or (b) put together a Torah for the nation, as best he could reconstruct one, tell the nation "this is our Torah," and let Judaism survive? I wonder. That’s one example of the question of “pious fraud.” This type of situation might, theoretically, have occurred at other times, and to lesser degrees. We cannot possibly know.
Another problem I have discussed extensively on your Dec. 25 post (which turned into a discussion on the mabul) is the negative effect that social ostracism, and suppression and repression of doubt, may have had on the reliability of the mesorah. If people are afraid to openly question things—and that is certainly the climate among chareidim today, and possibly was at other times in our history—this totally sabotages the reliability of the mesorah, as we can envision people going along with others out of fear.
There are many problems that, together, make it impossible to verify the accuracy of the mesorah. It is a matter of emunah. This is the emes. And emes is supposed to count for something.
>Either way, at least we are mostly on the same page as our forbears. Don't you thin we can also check how off we are by comparing halacha from our times to 100 years ago etc.? Would you say we are so far off, qualitatively, from the way the Rambam codified things? I would havve estimated not.<
As far as the mesorah goes, the most critical period was before 300 BCE. It’s similar to the accuracy of the Torah text. Since the invention of printing, there hasn’t been much variation. It is a mistake to extrapolate backwards. Rambam had to search far and wide to find an accurate text.
No one can prove what the text—or the mesorah—looked like before about 300 BCE. We have emunah, but that is all it is. I believe in honesty. This is the emes.
Kol Tuv,
Saul
Dear Reb Saul,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses. They are very informative. As an FYI, I, like you, take delight in debunking stuff. My particular brand of fun is debunking something "minei ubei"; where you can prove that the archie (bunker) himslf does not - or cannot - believe what he is saying.
Question for you, please:
- You obviously are a deep maamin. I am interested as to the foundation of your emuna considering your low estimation of the mesora as a viable tool.
Regards -
Aaron
Reb Aaron:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your sincere reply.
It is impossible to know precisely what is the foundation of emunah. I suspect that early indoctrination was a critical factor. It is the single most reliable predictor of who will wind up as a ma'amin. That is why we are required to give it to our children, and why, without it, they are not held accountable. It follows that it must work well, and it follows from that that this is at least a large part of why most of us have emunah.
It may sound shocking, but it is the emes. And I see two major problems resulting: (1) the early indoctrination deprives us of much of our bechirah; and (2) the fact that we are required to give it to our children suggests it is virtually impossible to become a ma'amin without indoctrination (this is one reason we hold Avraham Avinu in such high regard).
Both of these raise profound theological problems.
RYGB:
ReplyDeleteComment moderation is an extreme step, generally used to weed out profanity. Used otherwise, it is interpreted by readers as a tool for censorship, and results in a loss of respect (and readership) for the blogger.
I would recommend that you explain your policy. If you are concerned about profanity you should say so. This will give a poster the opportunity to repost without the offensive word(s). If it's ideas you are censoring out, it will not be well received, and your readership will plummet.
I've seen it happen. One fellow keeps blogging and gets not a single comment posted because of his comment moderation.
I was getting some nasty comments from an anonymous source - attacks without content. I hope this person goes away so I can turn off the moderation in a day or two.
ReplyDeleteDear RYGB and Reb Aaron,
ReplyDeleteAaron when are you starting your own blog?
kol tov
regards from Yerushalyim
baruch
On why you imposed comment moderation:
ReplyDelete>I was getting some nasty comments from an anonymous source - attacks without content. <
They were a bit nasty, but not without "content." He was saying he found your defense of a literal interpretation of the flood, in light of the evidence marshalled against it, to be "wacko," and threatening to abandon Judaism if a rabbi could take what he considered such an unreasonable position. Though somewhat intemperate, he was making a point. Perhaps if stated a bit more moderately, it should be allowed to be posted.
This isn't directly relevant to this post, and you can moderate this comment out of existence if you want, but it looks like with your new layout half of your profile picture is getting cut off.
ReplyDeleteI noticed the thing with the picture, but I have no idea how to fix it!
ReplyDeleteReb Baruch!!!
ReplyDeletePeace and blessing to you!
- ben blog blog (Aaron)
Reb Aaron:
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on my response to your interesting question?
Saul
has the rav tried cropping the empty areas on the sides out of the picture, to make it as a whole narrower?
ReplyDeleteTo Saul:
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot give us examples of the kinds of things that Ezra had to make up to save Yahadus, then we can't evaluate the scenario.
I suspect that the things that would have theoretically been made up could only be things that were NOT "national unforgettables". Anything too big should have survived without Ezra's tinkering. Remeber, the Babelonian Exile was only 70 years long. (Or is that disputed by secular historians as well?)
So I think we're back to R' Gottlieb's argument without a refutation.
You're assuming "national unforgettables" would not be accepted unless they really happened. This is not so, as I shall demonstrate.
ReplyDeleteYou can stay with R. Gottlieb's argument until I refute it, which I will when I have some free time. You'd be able to refute it yourself if you were the least bit objective. It's not rocket science.
He was a philosopher at John's Hopkins. If he had written such weak arguments there they would have laughed him out of his department. It's amazing what he can get away with in the frum world.
FKM:
ReplyDeleteSetting aside your question for a moment, could you answer mine: Assume, hypotheticaly, that someone like Ezra were faced with a loss of Yahadus unless he proferred as completely Torah miSinai a text he knew was not completely Torah miSinai. Would he halachically have been required to tell the truth and watch Yahadus die, or to mislead the public and keep Yahadus alive?
Think hard.
With all due respect to you honesty and sincerity, I don't think you've had too much exposure to classic Rabbinic writings if you could ask such a question.
ReplyDeleteThe Sages of the Mishna and Gemara, Rishonim and Achronim, spanning millenia, are ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument.
The terms 'Kushyah', 'Teyuvtah', 'Tzorich Iyun Gadol' 'Ibayeh delo Ifshitah' are ubiquitous thruought our literature and is part and parcel of the classical Jewish mindset.
This goes for technical halachic discussions AND Hashkafic/ Yesodei HaDaas as well. There is no concept of "the Noble Lie" in all our tradition in reference to history, scholarship and texts.
I think you are invoking a non-Jewish paradigm of utility over truth. Our entire religion rejects such an approach to Jewish belief.
"Classic Rabbinic writings" are, unfortunately, irrelevant. As I've said above:
ReplyDelete"As far as the mesorah goes, the most critical period was before 300 BCE. It’s similar to the accuracy of the Torah text. Since the invention of printing, there hasn’t been much variation. It is a mistake to extrapolate backwards. Rambam had to search far and wide to find an accurate text.
No one can prove what the text—or the mesorah—looked like before about 300 BCE. We have emunah, but that is all it is. I believe in honesty. This is the emes."
The way Chazal behaved in the time of the Mishnah and Gemara, when the Torah text and basic mesorah was fixed, tells us next to nothing about what may have occurred hundreds of years before.
You mentioned the Babylonian exile having lasted only 70 years. You have to cover what may have happened from the time of Yehoshua down to Anshei Knesses ha-Gedolah, a period of 1,000 years during parts of which some Jewish kings outlawed Torah study and destroyed Torahs, among other tribulations. Telling me how Chazal behaved after the basic beliefs were already set is hardly relevant.
Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?
Reb Aaron:
ReplyDeleteYou asked me what I must assume were sincere questions and not an attempt to bait me. I responded sincerely, and raised what I believe are profound theological questions. I really would appreciate your answering my question as to what thoughts you have on my response.
Kol tuv,
Saul
To Freelance Kiruv Maniac:
ReplyDelete"There is no concept of "the Noble Lie" in all our tradition in reference to history, scholarship and texts."
Pardon me. But was it Rabbi Schwab who said (and I paraphrase) that the purpose of a biography of a godol is not to tell the truth, but rather to inspire? And haven't "unacceptable" views expressed by gedolim later been excised when their seforim were reprinted? And don't people brand as forgeries the words of Torah giants (e.g., Rambam's son) with which they don't agree?
"The Sages of the Mishna and Gemara, Rishonim and Achronim, spanning millenia, are ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument."
I think you would agree that there can be no doubt that Chazal were insightful enough to recognize the textual problems later made famous by the Documentary Hypothesists. Seeing that they were, as you say, "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument," can you point me to exactly where in the Gemara they discuss and answer the DH's challenges?
Ibn Ezra, of course, did raise a few of these questions, and was so "ruthlessly critical" that he gave answers such as "and the wise will remain silent." Some considered him a kofer just for raising the questions.
"Ruthlessly critical" when it comes to the integrity of the Torah's text or of the mesorah?
Don't make me laugh.
To Saul:
ReplyDeleteI don't think you understood my point. Let me clarify by commenting on your response.
But first let me see if I understood you correctly. You asked if Ezra would be capable of falsifying history and fill in gaps in sacred literature with his own inventions, in order to preserve what he understood as Judaism. Correct?
If so, your question isn't about OUR ability or inability to verify or reconstruct a potentialy distorted text.
Rather it is about the competing values that Ezra would have hypothetically been faced with- in deciding to intentionaly FALSIFY sacred liturature.
In this context, one can clearly see that the ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRUTH AND ACCURACY to the extent most humanly possible in all subsequent generations of Torah Sages, is instructive for the question at hand.
You remarked:
"Classic Rabbinic writings" are, unfortunately, irrelevant. As I've said above:"
I wasn't refering to the accuracy of their TEXTS. I was refering to their CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS. One can only fully appreciate this after deep and wide exposure to their writtings, which I'm still assuming that you do not possess. I don't think you have the expertise to dispute this observation that is shared by all living experts in CLASSIC Rabbinic literature (this EXCLUDES biographies which are admittedly partial and uncritical. They are besides the point insofar as they have nothing to do with Talmudic scholarship!)
Next:
"The way Chazal behaved in the time of the Mishnah and Gemara, when the Torah text and basic mesorah was fixed, tells us next to nothing about what may have occurred hundreds of years before."
To reiterate: You are talking verifying texts and is totaly irrelevant in discussing Ezra's (or any other pivotal Biblical figure's) assumed ATTITUDE towards preserving the integrity of sacred texts to the highest degree possible.
Saul said:
"You mentioned the Babylonian exile having lasted only 70 years. You have to cover what may have happened from the time of Yehoshua down to Anshei Knesses ha-Gedolah, a period of 1,000 years during parts of which some Jewish kings outlawed Torah study and destroyed Torahs, among other tribulations. Telling me how Chazal behaved after the basic beliefs were already set is hardly relevant."
You need to posit that there was someone capable of producing false beliefs/texts and then successfully pass them off as authentic.
Telling you how Chazal behaved is at least a strong indication that such falsification is not likely, and you now have the burden of proof to bring evidence that blatant falsification took place.
You said:
"Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?"
I believe the answer in unequivocal: The Halacha does not mandate a distortion of the word of G-d for any utilitarian purpose. We are simply expected to do the best we can under the restrictions of the Halachic system.
The classic attitude to all the "Reforms" and "Conservation techniques" of contemporary Jews who are trying to save Judaism from becoming obsolete has been: let G-d worry about the ultimate survival of Judaism. He has shown Himself to be suficiently invested to not just let it go down the tubes.
Continued from above:
ReplyDelete"There is no concept of "the Noble Lie" in all our tradition in reference to history, scholarship and texts."
Saul said:
"Pardon me. But was it Rabbi Schwab who said (and I paraphrase) that the purpose of a biography of a godol is not to tell the truth, but rather to inspire? And haven't "unacceptable" views expressed by gedolim later been excised when their seforim were reprinted? And don't people brand as forgeries the words of Torah giants (e.g., Rambam's son) with which they don't agree?"
First of all, Biographies are not the works of "classic Rabbinic scholarship" in any sense of the word.
You cannot use this genre to understand the integrity of an Ezra the Scribe.
But secondly, you are misreading this genre altogether.
I don't think R' Schwab advocated any falsification of true events.
He simply meant that a Gadol Biography is an educational tool to appreciate the immese greatness of a Torah personality.
The inclusion of all and sundry details of that Gadol's life would actually contribute to a distortion of the REALISTIC PORTRAIT of that Gadol.
When it comes to a biography, there is an objective way of sifting through the facts to know which ones are considered "representative".
People who were intimately familiar with a person and knew him inside-out, will discern what an accurate image of that person should look like. They can be justified in omitting certain facts that would unjustly diminish the true stature of the person.
Now you mention other modes of censorship. This is a matter of protecting the Jewish public from heretical ideas. This can be considered a halachic obligation.
If you would rather be unprotected and make the assessment for yourself, I can understand that.
But it misses the point. The Bible/Talmud itself has NEVER censored by our leaders despite the fact that many passages therein have cost us and continue to cost us dearly. This is futher indication that falsification is highly implausable. If it were a realistic option, you would not find many of the problematic sections that are embarrasingly clear for all to see.
"The Sages of the Mishna and Gemara, Rishonim and Achronim, spanning millenia, are ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument."
Saul said:
"I think you would agree that there can be no doubt that Chazal were insightful enough to recognize the textual problems later made famous by the Documentary Hypothesists. Seeing that they were, as you say, "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument," can you point me to exactly where in the Gemara they discuss and answer the DH's challenges?"
My friend, have you heard of Halachic and Aggadic midrash? The Mechilta, Toras Cohanim, Sifra, Sifri?
Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma? All of them directly or indirectly provide resolutions to problems in the text.
Do you know how many redundancies and inconsistencies of the Chumash are explained on EVERY OTHER PAGE of the Talmud?? Take the discrepencies in the two versions of the Ten Commandments.
Have you heard of the phrase "Shamor VeZachor BiDibbur Echad Ne'Emru"?
The list of resolutions to DH type problems is virtually endless.
Let's take the multiple names of G-d which is the bread and butter of DH.
It is simply beyond cliche to quote Rashi who consistently cites the midrashim that describe a different attribute of THE SAME G-D with every alternate name suddenly introduced in the narrative!
Of course they picked upon this!
"Don't make me laugh."
Indeed.
To Freelance KM:
ReplyDelete>But first let me see if I understood you correctly. You asked if Ezra would be capable of falsifying history and fill in gaps in sacred literature with his own inventions, in order to preserve what he understood as Judaism. Correct?
If so, your question isn't about OUR ability or inability to verify or reconstruct a potentialy distorted text.<
Correct. That’s not my IMMEDIATE question.
>Rather it is about the competing values that Ezra would have hypothetically been faced with- in deciding to intentionaly FALSIFY sacred liturature. <
I would say “reconstruct,” not “falsify.”
>In this context, one can clearly see that the ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRUTH AND ACCURACY to the extent most humanly possible in all subsequent generations of Torah Sages, is instructive for the question at hand.<
No. To the extent later generations have such an “ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRUTH AND ACCURACY,” it may be because they can afford to, because the survival of yiddishkeit does not hinge on the outcome. I am talking about what a leader would do if the survival of Yiddishkeit depended on him. He might not be so stubbornly committed to TRUTH AND ACCURACY if survival of Yiddishkeit were at stake.
>You remarked:
"Classic Rabbinic writings" are, unfortunately, irrelevant. As I've said above:"
I wasn't refering to the accuracy of their TEXTS. I was refering to their CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS. One can only fully appreciate this after deep and wide exposure to their writtings, which I'm still assuming that you do not possess. I don't think you have the expertise to dispute this observation that is shared by all living experts in CLASSIC Rabbinic literature (this EXCLUDES biographies which are admittedly partial and uncritical. They are besides the point insofar as they have nothing to do with Talmudic scholarship!) <
Again, they may have employed CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS when Judaism’s survival wasn’t at stake. That doesn’t tell me what they would do if it was, or even if they would apply CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS to analyzing the accuracy or divinity of the Torah text or of the mesorah in normal times.
>Saul said:
"You mentioned the Babylonian exile having lasted only 70 years. You have to cover what may have happened from the time of Yehoshua down to Anshei Knesses ha-Gedolah, a period of 1,000 years during parts of which some Jewish kings outlawed Torah study and destroyed Torahs, among other tribulations. Telling me how Chazal behaved after the basic beliefs were already set is hardly relevant."
You need to posit that there was someone capable of producing false beliefs/texts and then successfully pass them off as authentic.
Telling you how Chazal behaved is at least a strong indication that such falsification is not likely, and you now have the burden of proof to bring evidence that blatant falsification took place.<
No. The theory to be addressed is that the text and/or mesorah may have evolved, and possibly may have been helped along by someone in a situation such as that hypothesized above with respect to Ezra. Telling me how Chazal behaved with respect to other matters is irrelevant. What would be relevant is if Chazal openly addressed every problem pointed out by the DHs—as if it were a challenge to the divinity of the Torah—and honestly and reasonably showed it was wrong. Why didn’t they discuss these issues in terms of being challenges to the divinity of the Torah? Why did Ibn Ezra say “the wise will remain silent?” Why was he criticized for raising the issues? Why did he say that the books of another commentator—who claimed non-Mosaic authorship of a small piece of the Torah—should be burned? Why is anyone today who questions the reliability of the mesorah labeled a “kofer?” Do you think all this is because of “CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS” being applied with an “ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRUTH AND ACCURACY?” Do you think this is being "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument?"
Quite to the contrary. It is because neither today’s gedolim, nor Chazal, would ever question the mesorah. They didn’t have the least interest in its TRUTH AND ACCURACY, because they would not dare doubt it. It is precisely in such a climate of UNQUESTIONING acceptance that falsification becomes possible.
>Let's take the multiple names of G-d which is the bread and butter of DH.
It is simply beyond cliche to quote Rashi who consistently cites the midrashim that describe a different attribute of THE SAME G-D with every alternate name suddenly introduced in the narrative!
Of course they picked upon this!<
Can you point out where they say that any of the problems pointed out by the DH might, at first blush, suggest human authorship? THAT would be being "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument."
I asked:
“I think you would agree that there can be no doubt that Chazal were insightful enough to recognize the textual problems later made famous by the Documentary Hypothesists. Seeing that they were, as you say, "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument," can you point me to exactly where in the Gemara they discuss the assumption of divine authorship?
“The way Chazal behaved in the time of the Mishnah and Gemara, when the Torah text and basic mesorah was fixed, tells us next to nothing about what may have occurred hundreds of years before."
You responded to me as follows:
To reiterate: You are talking verifying texts and is totaly irrelevant in discussing Ezra's (or any other pivotal Biblical figure's) assumed ATTITUDE towards preserving the integrity of sacred texts to the highest degree possible.<
I don’t understand. I am saying that Chazal’s depth of analysis does not have anything to do with whether they critically analyzed the accuracy/divinity of the Torah text or of the mesorah. I assume they did not do the latter. If they did, please point out where.
> you now have the burden of proof to bring evidence that blatant falsification took place.<
I have no such burden, because I am not alleging it took place. I am alleging that
the mesorah MAY have evolved gradually or been tampered with. My only burden is to reasonably explain how this may have happened, which is not difficult to do. I don't have to bring two witnesses to testify exactly when it happened.
I will show the defects in R. Gottlieb’s Kuzari “proof” in due course.
>You said:
"Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?"
I believe the answer in unequivocal: The Halacha does not mandate a distortion of the word of G-d for any utilitarian purpose. We are simply expected to do the best we can under the restrictions of the Halachic system. <
Really? Aren’t we allowed to violate almost all dinim to save a life? And isn’t saving a Jew from loss of his religion akin to saving a life? So tell me definitively that Ezra would have been prohibited from piecing together a Torah as best he could in order to save the Jewish religion. Give me a p’sak halacha that it would be assur.
>The classic attitude to all the "Reforms" and "Conservation techniques" of contemporary Jews who are trying to save Judaism from becoming obsolete has been: let G-d worry about the ultimate survival of Judaism. He has shown Himself to be suficiently invested to not just let it go down the tubes.<
I’m not sure what your point is. G-d had no trouble letting six million die. He had no trouble allowing the Temple to be destroyed and His people exiled. Do you think that Ezra would have left matters to G-d, or rather assumed that G-d put him in the right place at the right time to save His people, and acted accordingly?
> The inclusion of all and sundry details of that Gadol's life would actually contribute to a distortion of the REALISTIC PORTRAIT of that Gadol.<
No. It would contribute to a REALISTIC PORTRAIT of that Gadol. It would merely make him look human, which is not permissible.
> Now you mention other modes of censorship. This is a matter of protecting the Jewish public from heretical ideas. This can be considered a halachic obligation.<
Precisely. How can you proclaim that Chazal were brutally honest as to matters of mesorah and emunah while saying we advocate protecting the Jewish public from heretical ideas?? Protecting the Jewish public from heretical ideas requires suppression of ideas that might lead to doubt. You can’t have it both ways.
> The Bible/Talmud itself has NEVER censored by our leaders despite the fact that many passages therein have cost us and continue to cost us dearly. This is futher indication that falsification is highly implausable.<
This may be true to a great extent after 300 BCE. We have no idea what happened before that.
> My friend, have you heard of Halachic and Aggadic midrash? The Mechilta, Toras Cohanim, Sifra, Sifri?
Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma? All of them directly or indirectly provide resolutions to problems in the text.
Do you know how many redundancies and inconsistencies of the Chumash are explained on EVERY OTHER PAGE of the Talmud??<
Speaking of redundancies, your own prolific blog has come to my attention. I just looked at part of it. You are discussing the Torah’s repetition of the names of animals in Vayikra and Devarim. Correct me if I misunderstand what you say there (or if I am taking it out of context), but it seems that the Gemara takes an adjective that appears from context to mean “split,” and says it is the name of an animal with two backs, which you admit doesn’t fit at all into the grammar of the text of the pasuk. They do this to explain the repetition. Is this an example of Chazal’s vaunted “honesty,” commitment to “truth and accuracy,” and being "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument?" Or is it rather a sign that they won’t seriously consider problems in the Torah or mesorah, and seek any solution they can come up with, even if it does violence to the pasuk? I’m sure there are countless other examples.
>The list of resolutions to DH type problems is virtually endless.<
Resolutions? All I see clear evidence of is a commitment to preserving emunah. Certainly not intellectual honesty as we understand it. Unwavering commitment to preserving emunah—rather than objective analysis—is what I see, and this is precisely what throws the reliability of the mesorah into question. If the Gemara had said “we don’t know why Devarim repeats Vayikra,” rather than forcibly converting a word to mean something that violates the grammar of a pasuk, then I might have more respect for the reliability of the mesorah. What I see is people desperate to salvage emunah.
Perhaps Ezra was the same.
Saul, please email me. dbmin9@NOSPAM.aol.com
ReplyDeletethanks.
To Saul:
ReplyDeleteSorry i skipped a day. I was trying to find to sources to present to you in this comment. Thank you for bearing with me.
I hope you can discern where I added my new response to this dialogue.
I put your previous comments in quotation marks. My new response follows those quotes.
>Rather it is about the competing values that Ezra would have hypothetically been faced with- in deciding to intentionaly FALSIFY sacred liturature. <
"I would say “reconstruct,” not “falsify.”"
This contradicts the scenario that you constructed for me to respond to above:
You asked:
“Assume, hypotheticaly, that someone like Ezra were faced with a loss of Yahadus unless he proferred as completely Torah miSinai a text he knew was not completely Torah miSinai. Would he halachically have been required to tell the truth and watch Yahadus die, or to mislead the public and keep Yahadus alive?”
The scenario calls for claiming parts of the text were Torah MiSinai when in fact they are not. That is not reconstruction. It is a “noble lie”.
"No. To the extent later generations have such an “ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRUTH AND ACCURACY,” it may be because they can afford to, because the survival of yiddishkeit does not hinge on the outcome. I am talking about what a leader would do if the survival of Yiddishkeit depended on him. He might not be so stubbornly committed to TRUTH AND ACCURACY if survival of Yiddishkeit were at stake."
I don’t know what you mean by “the survival of yiddishkeit” Maybe this is the root of our disagreement.
I define the survival of Yiddishkeit as the historical continuity of the original religion as established by its founders.
Once you deviate from the original religion, then you have lost Yiddishkeit and now have neo-yiddishkeit.
If Ezra’s generation lost a part of the original text which contained a unique element of the original religion not subsumed by the surviving text, then in my book, Yiddishkeit has already been lost even before Ezra’s “reconstruction” takes place. He is no longer saving it. It’s like calling the attachment of a prosthethis “saving” a limb.
This is not at all similar to the loss of prophesy or the loss of the Temple and the sanheddrin. There, it is an inability to implement the full expression of Judaism. It's like losing very powerful chess pieces in a game of chess but remaining with one's king. But your scenario involves losing the king and trying to get the queen to stand-in. If the game continues, it can't be called chess.
"Again, they may have employed CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS when Judaism’s survival wasn’t at stake. That doesn’t tell me what they would do if it was, or even if they would apply CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS to analyzing the accuracy or divinity of the Torah text or of the mesorah in normal times."
Now here you are completely changing the topic.
We went from fabricating some of the words of a text purported to be Divine, to analyzing the very divinity of this entire text. This is an entirely separate issue. I will address it later on since it became the focus of the rest of your remarks.
>You need to posit that there was someone capable of producing false beliefs/texts and then successfully pass them off as authentic.
Telling you how Chazal behaved is at least a strong indication that such falsification is not likely, and you now have the burden of proof to bring evidence that blatant falsification took place.<
“No. The theory to be addressed is that the text and/or mesorah may have evolved, and possibly may have been helped along by someone in a situation such as that hypothesized above with respect to Ezra. Telling me how Chazal behaved with respect to other matters is irrelevant.”
What “other matters”? Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. The behavior of Chazal that I’m referring to is their hyper-scrutiny of every teaching that is presented by a sage to see if there is any prior statement or principle in the entire tradition that contradicts it or modifies it. Were you even aware that this is what the Talmud is all about? How can you reasonably posit that someone can simply slip a few passages or even verses into the most sacred and familiar text, when a sage can’t get a single law pushed through without having it cross-examined by the rest of the Oral Law? It’s a preposterous hypothesis.
Here comes the main problem:
“ What would be relevant is if Chazal openly addressed every problem pointed out by the DHs—as if it were a challenge to the divinity of the Torah—and honestly and reasonably showed it was wrong. Why didn’t they discuss these issues in terms of being challenges to the divinity of the Torah? Why did Ibn Ezra say “the wise will remain silent?” Why was he criticized for raising the issues? Why did he say that the books of another commentator—who claimed non-Mosaic authorship of a small piece of the Torah—should be burned? Why is anyone today who questions the reliability of the mesorah labeled a “kofer?” Do you think all this is because of “CRITICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS” being applied with an “ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRUTH AND ACCURACY?” Do you think this is being "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument?
Quite to the contrary. It is because neither today’s gedolim, nor Chazal, would ever question the mesorah. They didn’t have the least interest in its TRUTH AND ACCURACY, because they would not dare doubt it. It is precisely in such a climate of UNQUESTIONING acceptance that falsification becomes possible.”
Now we have the real issue: divine authorship. This is squarely delt with by Rabbi Gottleib as you know. I'm very interested in seeing what flaws you found.
But first , let me say that I deeply sympathize with your perception of uncritical acceptance of the Mesorah/divinity of the Torah. It is very frustrating to be told that we have all these brilliant analytical minds in our heritage but they all seem to get very dogmatic when it comes to questioning the foundations of our very belief structure. Scrutinizing the obscure legal statements regarding Tumas Meis is really not where you’re at and doesn’t help you one bit.
I think I’m starting to understand.
>Let's take the multiple names of G-d which is the bread and butter of DH.
It is simply beyond cliche to quote Rashi who consistently cites the midrashim that describe a different attribute of THE SAME G-D with every alternate name suddenly introduced in the narrative!
Of course they picked upon this!<
"Can you point out where they say that any of the problems pointed out by the DH might, at first blush, suggest human authorship? THAT would be being "ruthlessly critical of every assumption that may be lurking underneath the surface of an argument."
You don't seem to acknowledge the fact that the Midrashic literature does resolve the anomalies in the text that are pointed out by DH.
You only seem to be interested in having the sages recognize that divinity should be called into question and they should have addressed it.
In my humble opinion, you’ve got DH all wrong. If I understand you here, you present DH as if the problems in the text themselves suggest human authorship as opposed to divine authorship.
This is a fallacy. DH starts with the assumption of the objective academic (read: secular) mindset that there is no prophesy and no dictation of text from G-d to any human being (how naïve of us fundamentalists to belive that!). Now with that in mind, they are analyzing what they "know" to be a purely human document and perceive all kinds of problems that are most likely to be solved if you posit MULTIPLE human authors.
So let’s leave DH out of the discussion and focus on the real issue: How do we rationally accept divine authorship and prophesy in general which is what the whole Tanach and Oral Law is based on? Perfectly valid question, but you aren’t being so straightforward in articulating it.
But I want to emphasise, that once we allow divine authorship to be a possibility, the whole attempt of DH is incompetent. You can’t rule out divine authorship just because a single human author wouldn’t have written the Torah this way. By positing divine authorship,we can reasonably relegate all the problems in the text as allusions to different meanings that were explained orally at the same time this obscure text was written. There is simply no evidence against this hypothesis from DH. And there is even some evidence in favor from the written text itself. Apparently, G-d wanted to convey certain extra information by virtue of those redundancies/inconsistencies. It is not some desprate attempt to preserve emuna and avoid objective analysis. It simply follows logically from that emunah in prophesy. What reason is there to accept DH over this view other than simple secular skepticism? We're back to the prophesy issue.
"I don’t understand. I am saying that Chazal’s depth of analysis does not have anything to do with whether they critically analyzed the accuracy/divinity of the Torah text or of the mesorah. I assume they did not do the latter. If they did, please point out where."
Again this is a more general question of evidence for prophesy. Not relevant to the reasonability of someone losing/restoring/tampering with the text of the Torah. I got confused because you changed the topic without telling me.
> you now have the burden of proof to bring evidence that blatant falsification took place.<
"I have no such burden, because I am not alleging it took place. I am alleging that
the mesorah MAY have evolved gradually or been tampered with. My only burden is to reasonably explain how this may have happened, which is not difficult to do. I don't have to bring two witnesses to testify exactly when it happened."
No. You have the burden of presenting a hypothesis that is more reasonable than mine. Imagination doesn’t win any points. I only need to take your skepticism seriously if you can offer a reason to abandon my belief in favor of your hypothesis. Just concocting a realistic fish story isn’t by itself, a challenge to my realistic non-fish story.
If you want positive evidence to accept my non-fish story, that's Rabbi Gottlieb's department...
"I will show the defects in R. Gottlieb’s Kuzari “proof” in due course."
Waiting to hear it.
>You said:
"Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?"
I believe the answer in unequivocal: The Halacha does not mandate a distortion of the word of G-d for any utilitarian purpose. We are simply expected to do the best we can under the restrictions of the Halachic system. <
"Really? Aren’t we allowed to violate almost all dinim to save a life?"
This is an allowance within the Halachic system, isn’t it? And I’m glad you realized it has its limitations which I will get to shortly.
“And isn’t saving a Jew from loss of his religion akin to saving a life? So tell me definitively that Ezra would have been prohibited from piecing together a Torah as best he could in order to save the Jewish religion. Give me a p’sak halacha that it would be assur.”
To reiterate: You aren’t saving the Jewish religion by passing off some non-divine information as if it was divine. You are corrupting it. You want halacha? How about Ba’al Tosif and Ba’al Sigrah? One cannot add or subtract from the mitzvos of Moshe's divinely recieved traditions. It’s explicit.
And what about Pikuach Nefesh? Maybe the Torah itself can be altered in times of great danger just like the practice of the Torah can be altered?
First of all, surely you realize that there is simply no comparison between the temporary suspension of a mitzvah/prohibition and the permanent alteration of the source text of all Judaism.
Secondly, it took me a while to track it down, but I did actually find a p’sak halacha on this very matter. It is the Yam Shel Shlomo Chapt. 4 siman 9 to Bava Kamma 38 .
It is cited by R’ Moshe Feinstein as legally binding ruling in O.C. 5- 25;21 (found in Vol.8)
The gemara B.K.38 cites a fascinating incident regarding an attempt by the Roman government to infiltrate a Talmudic academy and uncover any subversive information taught therein. The spies (discovered without their knowledge) are allowed access to everything in the tradition- including the incriminating laws that favor Jews in monetary disputes with non-Jews. The spies are so impressed with what they see that they reveal themselves and agree not to convey the incriminating rulings to the Roman government.
The Yam Shel Shlomo drerives the following Halacha: (free translation) It is forbidden to alter a single word of Torah even at the risk of mortal danger. And one is obligated to be martyred over it.
We see this is the case, for were they not concerned about the almost certain decrees against the religion and violent pogroms by the Romans? Who have proved themselves as sworn enemies bent on finding pretexts to persecute us? If so, would it not have been justified to alter a few halachos?
Therefore we must conclude that rather we are obligated to endure martyrdom.
And if one were to actually alter one halacha, he is a denier (“kofer”) of the Torah of Moshe.
I think this is roughly what you were asking me for.
The only thing Ezra would have been permitted to do to avoid Ba’al Tosif is to pass new legislation that would have to be an explicitly rabbinic reconstruction/substitution of the parts of the Torah that were suspected of being lost.
This is analogous to what R’ Yochanan Ben Zakai did in response to the devastating effect that the destruction of the Temple wrought on the Jewsih People. Only Rabbinic decrees clearly labeled as such.
>The classic attitude to all the "Reforms" and "Conservation techniques" of contemporary Jews who are trying to save Judaism from becoming obsolete has been: let G-d worry about the ultimate survival of Judaism. He has shown Himself to be suficiently invested to not just let it go down the tubes.<
I’m not sure what your point is. G-d had no trouble letting six million die. He had no trouble allowing the Temple to be destroyed and His people exiled. Do you think that Ezra would have left matters to G-d, or rather assumed that G-d put him in the right place at the right time to save His people, and acted accordingly?
This dilemma is directly addressed by the Yam Shel Shlomo quoted above.
I think the rest of the points you made were covered by this response already. If I left anything out, please include it in your next comment.
Kol Yuv,
FKM
Sorry, that should have been Kol Tuv.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I was thinking about why Chazal didn't even take the possibility of human authorship seriously or spend any serious effort to debunk it.
I occured to me that we live in a post-enlightenment world where reality is primarily defined by what can be demonstrated in a laboratory.
I we can't see it or feel it, then it's a fairy tale to us.
I'm not saying you are irrational for being skeptical of this, but at least look at it from a traditional point of view: If you take into account the reports that Chazal lived with open miracles on a regular basis, were capable of reviving the dead, and were able to have divine inspiration that was recognized as such ( of which the Talmud is filled with such reports) then it isn't hard to understand why the notion of human authorship and no prophesy is simply absurd to them.
An analogy for us is if someone asked you to take seriously the notion that you were adopted, and all your family members are really not realted to you at all.
Now you do not have any hard scientific evidence that you are adopted. Will you become skeptical of your relationships? Will you now be so unsettled by this possibility that you will try to obtain blood and DNA tests? I hope not.
Same is true with Chazal's confidence in the truth of Moshe's prophesy and it's unbroken tradition.
They lived and breathed it with every fiber of their being. It was as basic a reality as not being adopted.
My earlier remarks that mentioned my view about the genre of a Gadol biography is articulated much more cogently by Rabbi Berel Berkovitz.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote a negative critique of Dr. Marc B. Shapiro's academic-standard biography of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg in an issue of Jewish Action.
To my mind it is the best refutation of the university-type scholarship approach to concepts and personalities in Judaism in general.
The entire article can be found here:
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5761spring/counterpoint.pdf
I have pasted the most relevant passages for convienence.
I hope it's not to lengthy for a comment forum. My apologies to the gracious host, RYGB.
The gist of Professor Shapiro’s complaints
about my review is that I have not
“fairly evaluated” his book. As I will try to
show, that is precisely the gist of my critique:
I do not believe that he has fairly
evaluated Rabbi Weinberg. Many years
ago, I formed a mental picture of Rabbi
Weinberg, whose personality — more
than that of almost any other posek —
comes alive through his writings. I subsequently
found that it coincided almost
exactly with the portrait painted by Dayan
Apfel of Leeds (one of his leading pre-war
talmidim).
He describes him as follows12: “A glorious
figure of a gaon in Torah; a master of
thought, possessed of a refined soul, which
harmonised all the variegated beauty of
noble personal qualities. This was a man
who would say at every opportunity: ‘I
prefer one grain of truth to heaps and piles
of pilpul or mental acuity.’ Here was a
man of truth, humility, integrity, softness
and kindness; a man of Torah in all his
limbs and sinews; a remnant of the fire,
who departed this world childless, but left
behind extraordinary spiritual creations.
Pure in mind and deed; an example in all
his ways, whether between man and God
or man and man; he was not merely a
pleasant preacher, he also practised what
he preached. In his death, he left no one
comparable, and all in the Torah world
mourned for the beauty that is gone.”
This picture also coincides with the
image portrayed by Rabbi A.A. Weingort
(who grew up with him in the post-war
years)13 and is supported by the scholarly
analysis in Dr. Judith Bleich’s lengthy
monograph.14 None of this, however,
comes out in Professor Shapiro’s book
(despite, or perhaps because of, his wealth of detail). Of course, this does not necessarily
mean that his assessment is incorrect,
but it does at least prompt one to
exercise a degree of caution in evaluating his conclusions.
Professor Shapiro’s Weinberg is a rather
cold and remote figure, rather than a caring leader, modelled on the timeless Torah personality. We do not get a sense of the passion and humanity, the sensitivity
and fearless honesty, the warmth and
overwhelming love of Torah which so
characterized the man. It is a portrayal
which unfairly diminishes and reduces a great man.
Professor Shapiro writes of “facts speaking
for themselves,” of “words which
sound pretty clear” to him, and of the
need to judge “the quality of the evidence
and the arguments presented.” Clearly he believes that historical biographies are like
scientific treatises — based entirely on objective issues of evidence. But is there such a thing as scientifically objective
biography? The proper recording of history and human life invariably requires
interpretation. It involves, for example,
deciding which facts to include, understanding
the implications of the facts, and
deciding what weight or emphasis to give
to any particular aspect of the discussion.
Inevitably, therefore, it is a subjective and
fallible process. It is with Professor
Shapiro’s interpretation — his judging of the evidence, and his arguments — that I take issue.
I am content, however, to let his book, and my review, be judged by the rigorous academic standards of proof (beyond reasonable
doubt, or on a balance of probabilities?)
which he has himself chosen.
Professor Shapiro says that my reference to an “alleged” early “flirtation” by
Rabbi Weinberg with Haskalah and modern
Hebrew literature is designed to
induce the “unsuspecting” reader (sic) ”to believe that there is no real proof for this.”
Once again, we are back to proof. Rabbi Weinberg was undoubtedly interested in
Haskalah and modern Hebrew literature.
But does interest equal “flirtation”?15 One
can be interested in many things without flirting with them.
Flirtation suggests an emotional, as
opposed to intellectual, involvement.
Indeed, that is precisely what Professor Shapiro implies:
Professor Shapiro defends his use of
private correspondence, on the grounds
that his book is a biography, rather than hagiography (ignoring the fact that I myself praised it precisely because it is “a
complete and realistic biography,” and
not popular hagiography of the genre so popular nowadays, which I deplore as much as he).
Professor Shapiro’s analogy to “writing a
history of a president using only his public statements” is inappropriate. Political leaders try, above all, to woo and win the
support of the public, upon whom their
power and image depend. Their public
statements are therefore almost invariably
not an accurate reflection of their real views.
A gadol baTorah, however, is not an
elected politician. He acquires his status
by means of an unwritten consensus,
shaped by the collective wisdom of the
Jewish people. A posek, furthermore, is deemed to have a degree of integrity and
consistency which puts him above seeking popular approval of his halachic views.
His public writings, therefore, are likely to
constitute a truer reflection of his viewpoints
than his private correspondence,
which often requires interpretation or
background information. I prefer, therefore,
to read Rabbi Weinberg’s private correspondence
in the light of what we know
of his public writings, rather than the reverse.
I agree with Professor Shapiro that
books should be judged based solely on
their content and the evidence presented
by the author.24 I know nothing at all
about the professor’s background or Torah education, and I repeat that I certainly did
not mean to criticize or belittle him in any
of these respects. Judging the
book dispassionately, however, on its contents
and evidence, my conclusion was
(and is) that it contains observations
which are unsupported by the evidence,
deductions which are flawed,
assertions which are at best speculative,
and conclusions which
are unjustified.
I did not suggest that a non-Muslim
cannot offer insights about Islam, or that
Professor Shapiro cannot offer, and has
not offered, insights into Rabbi Weinberg’s
life. I would hardly have described his
work as “fascinating, impressive, and
reflecting meticulous study and careful
research” if that were my opinion.
Insights are one thing, however, and weaknesses
are another.
Professor Shapiro is upset by my comments
about an “outsider’s” ability to
properly evaluate a great Torah personality.
In quoting me, however, he left out the crucial words: I spoke of one “who has not experienced the joy of Torah study (so movingly described by Rabbi Weinberg)” and
referred in my footnotes to
pp. 8-10 and 27-30.
In the first passage, Rabbi Weinberg
describes, 50 years (!) after leaving
Slobodka, the “electric shock” he experienced
when hearing a Yom Kippur talk by
Rabbi Isaac Blazer — a “giant,” “divine guide,” “as close to an angel as a human being can ever be.” Each year, as he says,
he relived “that sacred hour, the holy face, the awesome scene, the timeless faith.” In the second passage, Rabbi Weinberg speaks of yeshiva students who “hear
things which fill our souls and bring
excitement to our hearts. Our life, in our eyes, is holy, and our purpose is clear.”
These passages highlight what is perhaps
the fundamental distinction between the Torah world and the academic world. As a law student, I was (sometimes) intellectually
challenged; as a university lecturer, I enjoyed debating with my students. But at no time did I hear things which filled my soul, or see my purpose as holy. My teachers were not giants, divine guides, or close to angels; and I do not relive any
holy face, awesome scenes, or timeless
faith, because all of these things were totally
lacking in that world. And when I
taught, say, the concept of criminal foresight,
I did not feel the excitement of
which Rabbi Weinberg speaks, and which
I experience when giving a shiur on the sugya of psik reisha (even though the subject-matter25 is very similar).
To be a talmid chacham (rather than, say, a scholar of Talmud) one has to emotionally appreciate the joy and holiness of Torah.
To be a posek, that joy and holiness has to
suffuse one’s whole being, to the point that one’s personality, moral and ethical sensibilities,
and life-purpose, are altered and
affected. This is what Rabbi Weinberg was depicting.
And that — notwithstanding his breadth
of vision, and his appreciation of the
academic world — is the life he lived
and exemplified.26
No academic scholar (however much he
enjoys Torah) shares these perspectives.
What is the particular singularity, and perhaps
even essence of, the Torah world,
becomes unacceptable in the academic
world. There all that counts is evidence and content; teachers are not moral guides, and the subject studied is not intended to
alter or affect one’s moral ethos. One’s findings are all the better when coming from the perspective of a dispassionate
observer, standing “outside” his subject.
Professor Shapiro’s book reflects that academic
approach, and I
do not believe he would want it to be
otherwise.
Although it is a fine approach to adopt when writing, say, a biography of an American president, I believe that it crucially
— and adversely — affects the validity
of one’s assessment when writing about
a gadol baTorah. Inevitably it means that the assessment will lack an experiential
dimension which is inextricably tied up with the subject of the biography. It is in that sense that I wrote that Professor Shapiro’s approach in the book is that of an “outsider.”27