Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Emunah Crib Sheet

This is the First Principle Section from http://rygb.blogspot.com/2006/06/my-machashavah-syllabus.html


First Principle (Emunah):

I. Ramchal:
A. Honor and Glory
B. L'Heitiv
C. Unity in Multiplicity

II. Reb Elchonon:
A. Heresy and Emotion
B. The Book in the Desert
C. Yellow and Pink
D. Yetzer HaTov, Yetzer HoRa – Intellect vs. Emotion
E. Mussar b'Hispa'alus
F. When we don't follow the Majority

III. The Kuzari
A. Mesorah
B. Yetzias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah
C. Kaffah Aleihem Har K'Giggis

IV. Emunah Peshutah
A. Chassidus vs. Misnagdus
B. Dveykus vs. Shleymus
C. Emunah Peshutah vs. Emunas Nashim


Now I would like to expand on the "evidence" component:

1. Introduction
A. Faith, Belief, Sensory "Fact"
B. Be a Judge, Not a Lawyer

2. Categories of Evidence (Based on Otzaros HaMussar):
A. Complexity of Creation
1. The pattern
(the cloth testifies to the weaver).
2. Natural wonders
(water expands when freezing, climate, percent of oxygen in atmosphere).
3. The human body
(the eye and vision;
the nose, breathing and and olfactory senses;
the mouth, swallowing, teeth; the vocal cords and speech;
the lungs, respiration;
the heart, the circulatory system;
blood;
the digestive system;
the skeleton and bones;
shoulders, arms, elbows, hands, fingers, thighs, legs, knees, feet;
the spinal column and nervous system, reflexes;
muscles;
skin;
antibodies;
sneezing (!);
reproduction and birth).

B . Jewish History , Survival and the World's Focus on Us

C. The Kuzari (see details above)

D. Philosphy: First Cause and Cause and Effect

E. The Divinity of the Torah
1. Kosher Animals, The Calendar; Shemittah and Yovel; Sotah.
2. The Expositions of Chazal
3. Gematriyos and Codes
4. The Greatness of Chazal

F. Inherent Morality and Ethics




26 comments:

  1. 1. The Kuzari argument has been discredited. It is fallacious.

    2. What is the argument for the divinity of the Torah from the kosher animals? I thought R. Slifkin debunked that.

    3. By "codes," do you mean the "Torah Codes?" If so, I believe that much of the Torah codes cannot possibly work since we don't have a Torah text that we know is accurate, and we don't know whether many words in the Torah are spelled with or without a vav. Much has been written on this. See, e.g., http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/codetext.html and http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/opinions/CohenArt/ and http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/opinions/cohen_codes_1.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. It has not been debunked. I read the refutation and was duly unimpressed.

    2. Ditto.

    3. I am not a great fan of the Codes, but I think to dismiss them because of the vav issue is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >1. It has not been debunked. I read the refutation and was duly unimpressed.<

    Not that refutation. I have written a refutation and it will be posted soon. We'll see what you have to say then. The Kuzari argument is silly nowadays.


    >2. Ditto.<

    R. Slifkin has thoroughly debunked the four-animal proof. There are at least six defects in the proof. I really don't know what you're talking about. Anyone who uses the proof now is defrauding his audience.

    >3. I am not a great fan of the Codes, but I think to dismiss them because of the vav issue is absurd.<

    Words all over the Torah that we don't know how many letters they have. Absurd? Your statement seems absurd. And the vavs are only one of many problems. Read the links I provided about the accuracy of the Torah text. Read Prof. Marc Shapiro's article and book about Rambam's 13 ikkarim, and study the part about the Torah text. Great gedolim have acknowledged that we don't know if the text we have is exactly the same as the original. Read all this, instead of the propaganda they teach in many yeshivos, and you will see the truth. The evidence is overwhelming.

    It's FAR from absurd. Your comments seem absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see you know how to dole out insults. Easier than substantive responses.

    I would debate you on the issues and show you're wrong, but I have followed some of your debates and have seen that you become irrational on these kinds of issues. I read your comment on the flood debate, where you said that it was most reasonable to think that Noach's descendents came upon the remains of Egypt after the flood, gave up their own religion, language, culture, alphabet, etc. and restarted the dead Egyptian civilization.

    One of your readers said that if an Orthodox rabbi could utter such nonsense, he was going to throw away his yarmulka. You deleted his post.

    Arguing with you is a waste of time. Stick to teaching gemara. In that realm you're probably fairly rational.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your problem is that your mind is closed. If someone shows you that your traditional view makes little sense, you will insist it makes the MOST sense, because nothing can make you let go of your traditional view. It always has to be correct, so no amount of rational argument will sway you. You are not searching for truth, because you are convinced you are already there. No one can ever convince you that your traditional view is wrong. You won't allow it. It is non-negotiable.

    You have no scruples when it comes to intellectual honesty. The traditional view has to be right even when it appears to be wrong. That's why it is a waste of time arguing with you. You really have no business dealing with some of the issues in your "curriculum." Discussing them objectively is beyond your abilities.

    Sorry, but it's the truth. It's a shame if some of your students don't see through you and are "taken in."

    ReplyDelete
  6. As one of the so called "taken in" students, I feel I should respond...

    I would submit to you SF, that YOU are the one with a closed mind. You are unable to accept certain truths no matter what evidence there is to support it.

    All of the evidence of the devine origin of the Torah combined points to a truth. Each piece of evidence does not. But we never use one piece of evidence to decide on something, but rather a combination of pieces. And of course there will be room to doubt the evidence as you do, otherwise ther eis no free will!

    CODES:

    In RYGB's class I also brought up the question that if we dont know about the vav's etc. or the 9 or so letter differences between Torah scrolls today, how could codes work? We figured out that if you look at what the codes are doing, a single letter mistake would not affect most of them. (unless the equidistant letter sequence was a large gap, in which case a mistaken letter would not line up correctly). Since we are talking about maybe less than 1% letter differences, then we shoudl expect most of the codes to work out anyways.

    KUZARI:

    I have to agree with my Rebbe on this one. I have never seen an diquet defence to this. Even Rabbi Gottlieb, who has a PHD in mathematical logic, and taought philosophy at John Hopkins U, adheres to the kuzari argument in his "Living up to the truth" (I suggest you read it). I happen to be in the science field in graduate school but not in logic, so I trust that if R Gottlieb hasnt been impressed by the "refutations", I dont need to be.

    ANIMALS:

    R Slifkin did not say that the Torah was mistaken, but rather that he saw that it was not a good proof of divinity to use since there are questionable animals etc. But if you look at the number of questionable animals, and the details involved, it takes a zoololgist to even notice these things. For an average person on this earth, and an average survey of the animal kingdom, noone would come across these things. Therfore, I think it could serve as evidence of the Devine, but of course there are going to be minute details that are tricky and doubtful because once again, no one piece of evidence can be doubt-free otherwise there is no free will.

    Want a test of who has an open mind? Lets see your responce to this, and if you thought about anythign I said, or are you just goign to react with insults and "thats ridiculous", or will you actually consider some of these things?

    - Ron C.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay Ron, let me roll up my sleeves and begin.

    > I would submit to you SF, that YOU are the one with a closed mind. You are unable to accept certain truths no matter what evidence there is to support it.<

    I don’t think so. See below. I just no longer trust without question what most rabbis tell me. I have been burned too many times.

    > All of the evidence of the devine origin of the Torah combined points to a truth. Each piece of evidence does not. But we never use one piece of evidence to decide on something, but rather a combination of pieces.<

    If each piece SUPPORTING the divinity of the Torah is questionable, and there are lots of things (e.g., internal contradictions, historical inaccuracies, anachronisms, etc.) pointing to a non-divine origin, then things are not as clear as you make them out to be. In any case, I was talking about the Kuzari proof, not the divine origin of the Torah.

    >CODES:

    In RYGB's class I also brought up the question that if we dont know about the vav's etc. or the 9 or so letter differences between Torah scrolls today, how could codes work?<

    Good for you. I’m glad someone is questioning things.

    >We figured out that if you look at what the codes are doing, a single letter mistake would not affect most of them. (unless the equidistant letter sequence was a large gap, in which case a mistaken letter would not line up correctly). Since we are talking about maybe less than 1% letter differences, then we shoudl expect most of the codes to work out anyways.<

    If you would read the articles I linked to, and the book I cited, you would see that this is hardly a question of vavs and 9 differences. This is merely propaganda you are taught in yeshiva. Whole psukim are in doubt, the location of the middle letter, middle word and middle pasuk in the Torah is in doubt, it appears that according to Ibn Ezra a number of psukim may have been added after Moshe died (and not just the last few). And please don’t respond by harping on these few points. Read ALL the material I linked and cited. You will be shocked by what the DIDN’T tell you about in yeshiva.

    > KUZARI:

    I have to agree with my Rebbe on this one. I have never seen an diquet defence to this. Even Rabbi Gottlieb, who has a PHD in mathematical logic, and taought philosophy at John Hopkins U, adheres to the kuzari argument in his "Living up to the truth" (I suggest you read it). I happen to be in the science field in graduate school but not in logic, so I trust that if R Gottlieb hasnt been impressed by the "refutations", I dont need to be.<

    I have indeed read it, found a number of errors, have written a rebuttal and sent it to him, and believe he is mistaken and that the proof has no merit whatsoever.

    > ANIMALS:

    R Slifkin did not say that the Torah was mistaken, but rather that he saw that it was not a good proof of divinity to use since there are questionable animals etc. But if you look at the number of questionable animals, and the details involved, it takes a zoololgist to even notice these things. For an average person on this earth, and an average survey of the animal kingdom, noone would come across these things. Therfore, I think it could serve as evidence of the Devine, but of course there are going to be minute details that are tricky and doubtful because once again, no one piece of evidence can be doubt-free otherwise there is no free will.<

    Neither did I say that the Torah is mistaken. The proof is mistaken. R. Slifkin has refuted this proof, which has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. The proof is a scam. The proof claims that the Torah correctly predicted that the are only 4 animals in the world with a single kosher siman. Among the many defects in the proof: (1) the Torah never claims there are only 4; the gemara does; (2) the Gemara does not cite it as a proof, even though it cites a different proof on the next page; (3) no one knows what “maale gerah” means, so one can hardly make such a claim; (4) if the shafan and arneves are maale gerah, then so are a number of other animals that are not on the list; (5) the vicuna is maale gerah but not on the list; (6) if you argue that the vicuna is a camel, you should note that it has no humps and is one-tenth the size of a camel; (6) on that topic, no one knows which animals are considered to be in the same family, as the Torah sets forth no standards; (7) if you try to squeeze the many animals (many more than 4!) into the 4 types named in the Torah, you will find that there are only about 50-70 “families” of related animals in the world, not thousands as claimed, so the prediction hardly is remarkable; (8) some animals clearly are not named, e.g., the capybara; (9) if the arneves is maale gerah by virtue of rechewing its fecal pellets, then it does something that NO kosher maale gerah animal does. No rishon even mentions chewing fecal pellets as being maale gerah. There is no mesorah for this, so it is doubtful that it is MG. I could go on and on. For a rabbi to say this is a “proof” of ANY kind is outright fraud in my opinion.

    > Want a test of who has an open mind? Lets see your responce to this, and if you thought about anythign I said, or are you just goign to react with insults and "thats ridiculous", or will you actually consider some of these things?<

    I believe I have responded adequately.

    Kol tuv.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just to add a bit to what I’ve said:

    I went back and looked at your debate on the flood. Your opponent was arguing that a flood in approximately 2100 BCE (the date following the Torah’s reckoning) does not fit into Egyptian history, in which the monarchy (pharaohs) began circa 3000 BCE and continued for almost 3,000 years. You located a former Yale Ph.D. candidate in Egyptology, a ba’al t’shuvah, who claimed he could fit the flood into a 150-200 year gap in the monarchy. Your opponent contacted this fellow, and asked him whether he really thought it was possible that Egypt was totally destroyed by a flood, that Noach's descendents came upon the remains of Egypt after the flood, gave up their own religion, language, culture, alphabet, etc. and restarted the dead Egyptian civilization based on whatever remains they may have found after the flood. The former Yale fellow said yes.

    Your opponent then said to him that that would be like an expedition by archaeologists from an American university going to dig up Mayan ruins, and deciding to give up being Americans, give up the English language, their religion, their culture, become Mayans, start speaking Mayan and restart the Mayan civilization. He asked the former Yale fellow whether he really thought it was reasonable to think that these American archaeologists might do such a thing. The former Yale fellow replied “why not?” You then declared that this Yale fellow’s view was the most reasonable, which was followed by a post from a young man saying that if an Orthodox rabbi could make such a statement, he is ready to throw away his yarmulka.

    You see, dear rabbi, this is why one cannot carry on a conversation with you on such matters. You are so completely biased as to be incapable of properly evaluating views that are contrary to your understanding of our tradition. An intellectually honest person would have responded that the view expressed by the Yale fellow did seem outlandish or absurd, and that some other explanation must be found. But you were perfectly willing to adopt this nonsensical view, which supported your position.

    You might take a look at the foreword to Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb’s book “Living up to the Truth.” In it is stated: “It is very easy to fool others, and even yourself, into truly believing that you have analyzed certain information or events objectively. . . . Yet if [one] can . . . get a critical distance on what he clings to, come to doubt the ultimate value of what he loves, he has taken the first and most difficult step.” You, however, are unable to doubt the ultimate value of what you believe in, and thus are incapable of objectivity. This prevents you from analyzing issues in an intellectually-honest manner, and makes debating you a waste of time. This is unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And, Ron, I should add that Rav Mordechai Breuer, a descendent of both R. Samsom Raphael Hirsch and of the Washington Heights’ Breuer family, and one of the leading (Orthodox) experts on the Torah today, has stated that the Chumash has the appearance of having been written by multiple authors (though he believes that Hashem wrote it all, in different styles).

    There are problems galore.

    ReplyDelete
  10. > I read the refutation and was duly unimpressed.<

    Please provide an example where you were EVER impressed by an argument that potentially was damaging to someone’s emunah.

    ReplyDelete
  11. YGB said:
    > I read the refutation and was duly unimpressed.<

    Please provide an example where you were EVER impressed by an argument that potentially was damaging to someone’s emunah.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "has stated that the Chumash has the appearance of having been written by multiple authors (though he believes that Hashem wrote it all, in different styles).
    "

    So what? Why is this a problem?
    Is he a literary expert that can determine if a document looks like it was written by multiple authors? Why couldn't God write it in such a way? I fail to see the "probems galore"

    ReplyDelete
  13. SF...

    I'm not completely upto date with all these arguments. However, I did a quick look up on Ibn Ezra, just for fun. Aish (probably an organization you don't like), put up a refutation on your assumption that Ibn Ezra agrees that some psukim were added. I was wondering your take:

    http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_vaera.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reuven Meir said:
    >So what? Why is this a problem?
    Is he a literary expert that can determine if a document looks like it was written by multiple authors?<

    He is.

    >Why couldn't God write it in such a way?<

    Why WOULD He?

    >I fail to see the "probems galore"<

    Then I don’t think you’ve followed my suggestions. To quote you: “Want a test of who has an open mind? [W]ill you actually consider some of these things?”

    I suggested you read some material to learn the truth. Start with Marc Shapiro’s “The Limits of Orthodox Theology,” chap. 7. It is a “kosher” book, quoting Chazal, geonim, rishonim, acharonim and numerous gedolim of the past. It is about the accuracy of the text of the chumash. I think it will make your hair stand on end. If you can buy a copy, underline the important material and bring it in for R. Bechhofer to read, and let's see if he can explain it away. Then think about whether the Torah Codes make any sense.

    Then read the articles I linked to: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/codetext.html
    http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/opinions/CohenArt/
    http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/opinions/cohen_codes_1.pdf

    Bring those in as well.

    Problems galore indeed. Educate yourself about them. They won’t do it for you in yeshiva.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous said:
    >I'm not completely upto date with all these arguments. However, I did a quick look up on Ibn Ezra, just for fun. Aish (probably an organization you don't like), put up a refutation on your assumption that Ibn Ezra agrees that some psukim were added. I was wondering your take:

    http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_vaera.html<

    Thanks for the question. Yes, Aish is an organization I don’t like. They have many dedicated people, but, in my opinion, some of their arguments are scams and they can be unscrupulous. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them.

    The article by R. Gil Student (a fine fellow) is very limited in the material he chooses to quote. Read chapter 7 of the book by Shapiro, and the articles I linked to, for a fuller treatment. You will be surprised about who Ibn Ezra thought wrote what, and what other gedolim thought about Torah authorship and the accuracy of the text. Don’t get taken in by high school rebbeim who, though they may mean well, are ignorant of many of the facts and have been indoctrinated by their own rebbeim.

    Don’t lose sight of the goal: emes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reuven Meir said:

    “> KUZARI:

    I have to agree with my Rebbe on this one. I have never seen an diquet defence to this. Even Rabbi Gottlieb, who has a PHD in mathematical logic, and taought philosophy at John Hopkins U, adheres to the kuzari argument in his "Living up to the truth" (I suggest you read it). I happen to be in the science field in graduate school but not in logic, so I trust that if R Gottlieb hasnt been impressed by the "refutations", I dont need to be.<”

    I wouldn't be so trusting. R. Dr. Gottlieb is a brilliant man, but not necessarily objective. Even brilliant men can go astray if they are not objective. To get at the truth you must temporarily suspend your beliefs, make believe you're an atheist, and see if his arguments are convincing. Then you'll know. As long as you are biased, and know the answer you want to reach, it's VERY hard to evaluate an argument objectively. To do THAT, you have to try your best to punch holes in the argument.


    To answer your comment a bit more specifically:

    The basic Kuzari argument is that if someone made up a story about an entire nation witnessing a divine revelation, and then tried to “sell” that story to the descendents of those people, who were not previously aware of it, they would not believe him.

    Standing alone, this is a misleading “straw-man” argument, i.e., if our mesorah about Sinai were not true, THIS is not the way the mistaken view would have come about. It is an artificial, unlikely scenario, used by most of its proponents (though not R. Gottlieb) either because they can’t think too well or because it’s easy to refute.

    The way it WOULD have happened is that an elaborate myth would have formed over time, based on some kernel of truth. Rabbi Gottlieb acknowledges that such things happen. He rejects this possibility, though, with respect to the revelation at Sinai.

    I believe his arguments on this are fallacious, and have written a rebuttal to them and sent it to him.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As the objective reader can certainly discern, SF's attacks are the usual, insignificant ones.

    ReplyDelete
  18. YGB: Up to your old tricks, are you?

    I've presented cogent arguments and reliable sources. The refutation of the Kuzari argument should be available soon.

    Perhaps your student Reuven Meir's question was intended for you:

    >Want a test of who has an open mind? Lets see your responce to this, and if you thought about anythign I said, or are you just goign to react with insults and "thats ridiculous", or will you actually consider some of these things?<

    You have not considered what I've said, have not given thought to it, have not consulted the authoritative sources I cited, and are just reacting with something along the lines of "that's ridiculous." This is your standard modus operandi when you are faced with strong arguments. It's what you did when you said that U.S. archaeologists becoming Mayans sounded most reasonable to you.

    Why don't you try exercising some intellectual honesty? The answer is obvious: you cannot tolerate having your views refuted. I hope your students see through you.

    Istira b'legina kish kish kari.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am not sure what you mean by:

    you cannot tolerate having your views refuted

    After all, I am giving you free rein to write here what you want, with the utmost tolerance. If and when I see a point that is actually worth debating, I will certainly let you know...

    Which leads me to your conclusion:

    I hope your students see through you

    I hope so too!

    KVCT,
    YGB

    ReplyDelete
  20. I hope some of your students actually study what I wrote on the 4 animals, and actually read the references I have provided.

    >If and when I see a point that is actually worth debating, I will certainly let you know...<

    I shall not hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  21. YGB said:
    >I am not sure what you mean by:

    you cannot tolerate having your views refuted<

    You have expressed your views by including the Kuzari proof, the 4 animal proof and the Torah Codes in your syllabus. I attacked all three, and you responded:

    >1. It has not been debunked. I read the refutation and was duly unimpressed.

    2. Ditto.

    3. I am not a great fan of the Codes, but I think to dismiss them because of the vav issue is absurd.<

    I then provided detailed answers and references (plus a promise of a rebuttal of the Kuzari argument), to which you responded:

    >As the objective reader can certainly discern, SF's attacks are the usual, insignificant ones.<

    Now you say:

    >I am not sure what you mean by:

    you cannot tolerate having your views refuted.<

    I think I've made it abundantly clear above what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well, has anyone--including R. Bechhofer--taken the trouble to read chapter 7 of Marc Shapiro’s book, "The Limits of Orthodox Theology?"

    If so, can you explain how the Torah Codes could possibly work? Or why people are teaching yeshiva students that the only problems are some questionable vavs and 9 differences in letters?

    ReplyDelete
  23. In a similar vein, I once had an argument over dinner with RYGB's illustrious uncle, R' Immanuel Schochet, philosophy professor emeritus at a glorified business/nursing school in Toronto.

    It concerned proofs of the validity of the Oral Torah. He said that the proof of the validity of the Oral Torah was the Written Torah - so far so good, evidence like the lack of shechitah rules for chullin, definition of melechet avodah for shabbat, etc. seem to lean that direction. So what validates the Written Torah? Why, the Oral Torah! No matter how much I argued, he could not see that that was a circular argument, hence fallacious.

    Once again, religious faith trumps professional logic.

    It's a problem for a lot of religious academics - some manage to compartmentalize their faith from their academic positions, some don't.

    ReplyDelete
  24. >Once again, religious faith trumps professional logic.<

    Yes, thanbo. It results from a lack of objectivity.

    It's worth pointing out that while the Written Torah may suggest the EXISTENCE of an Oral Torah, it in no way supports the proposition that our mesorah is even roughly identical to the original Oral Torah, if there was such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. >even roughly identical to the original Oral Torah.

    No, of course not. It was only after finding that there are sources that support the position of an Oral Torah minimalist that I started to think I could accept an Orthodox theology. This was after learning the Rambam's intro to the Perush Hamishnayot, and reading (much of) R' Zvi Lampel's "Dynamics of Dispute". In discussions with R' Lampel, it's clear he's not an Oral Torah minimalist, but his book does allow for such a position, and even supports it implicitly.

    That is, about the only things we can say with any degree of certainty (and not even absolute certainty, at that) are from the Sinaitic Oral Torah are the Rambam's 37 Halachot LeMoshe MiSinai: things which are universally accepted, and never aroused real opposition, things like square black tefillin boxes.

    All the other stuff, the stuff that can be darshened, we treat as if it was Sinaitic, because we can't know which parts were accurately transmitted, and which parts were reconstructed by the drasha process.

    Stories like Moshe in R' Akiva's classroom, where R' Akiva is darshening halachos from the crowns on the letters, while Moshe doesn't understand what R' Akiva is doing, support this minimalist position for me.

    Things which are universally accepted principles, too, we can probably regard as Sinaitic, e.g. the melachos of shabbos (even if we can't really distinguish between borer, tochen, dash, etc.).

    There are Oral Torah maximalists out there, e.g. IIRC, the Minchas Elozer, who hold that even the chiddushim of current students were revealed at Sinai. I can even accept that, if we take it as a metaphor for, say, encoded potentials that were not understood by earlier generations. But not in a literal sense of "Yossi Stein explained the machlokess thus, which he didn't find in the Rishonim".

    ReplyDelete