tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post113733655066272885..comments2024-03-29T01:21:09.549-04:00Comments on YGB - יג"ב: Another post from my friend, Reb Aaron BergerYosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1138316839799396362006-01-26T18:07:00.000-05:002006-01-26T18:07:00.000-05:00My earlier remarks that mentioned my view about th...My earlier remarks that mentioned my view about the genre of a Gadol biography is articulated much more cogently by Rabbi Berel Berkovitz.<BR/>He wrote a negative critique of Dr. Marc B. Shapiro's academic-standard biography of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg in an issue of Jewish Action.<BR/><BR/>To my mind it is the best refutation of the university-type scholarship approach to concepts and personalities in Judaism in general.<BR/><BR/>The entire article can be found here:<BR/>http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5761spring/counterpoint.pdf<BR/>I have pasted the most relevant passages for convienence.<BR/>I hope it's not to lengthy for a comment forum. My apologies to the gracious host, RYGB.<BR/><BR/>The gist of Professor Shapiro’s complaints<BR/>about my review is that I have not<BR/>“fairly evaluated” his book. As I will try to<BR/>show, that is precisely the gist of my critique:<BR/>I do not believe that he has fairly<BR/>evaluated Rabbi Weinberg. Many years<BR/>ago, I formed a mental picture of Rabbi<BR/>Weinberg, whose personality — more<BR/>than that of almost any other posek —<BR/>comes alive through his writings. I subsequently<BR/>found that it coincided almost<BR/>exactly with the portrait painted by Dayan<BR/>Apfel of Leeds (one of his leading pre-war<BR/>talmidim).<BR/>He describes him as follows12: “A glorious<BR/>figure of a gaon in Torah; a master of<BR/>thought, possessed of a refined soul, which<BR/>harmonised all the variegated beauty of<BR/>noble personal qualities. This was a man<BR/>who would say at every opportunity: ‘I<BR/>prefer one grain of truth to heaps and piles<BR/>of pilpul or mental acuity.’ Here was a<BR/>man of truth, humility, integrity, softness<BR/>and kindness; a man of Torah in all his<BR/>limbs and sinews; a remnant of the fire,<BR/>who departed this world childless, but left<BR/>behind extraordinary spiritual creations.<BR/>Pure in mind and deed; an example in all<BR/>his ways, whether between man and God<BR/>or man and man; he was not merely a<BR/>pleasant preacher, he also practised what<BR/>he preached. In his death, he left no one<BR/>comparable, and all in the Torah world<BR/>mourned for the beauty that is gone.”<BR/>This picture also coincides with the<BR/>image portrayed by Rabbi A.A. Weingort<BR/>(who grew up with him in the post-war<BR/>years)13 and is supported by the scholarly<BR/>analysis in Dr. Judith Bleich’s lengthy<BR/>monograph.14 None of this, however,<BR/>comes out in Professor Shapiro’s book<BR/>(despite, or perhaps because of, his wealth of detail). Of course, this does not necessarily<BR/>mean that his assessment is incorrect,<BR/>but it does at least prompt one to<BR/>exercise a degree of caution in evaluating his conclusions.<BR/>Professor Shapiro’s Weinberg is a rather<BR/>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<BR/>and fearless honesty, the warmth and<BR/>overwhelming love of Torah which so<BR/>characterized the man. It is a portrayal<BR/>which unfairly diminishes and reduces a great man.<BR/>Professor Shapiro writes of “facts speaking<BR/>for themselves,” of “words which<BR/>sound pretty clear” to him, and of the<BR/>need to judge “the quality of the evidence<BR/>and the arguments presented.” Clearly he believes that historical biographies are like<BR/>scientific treatises — based entirely on objective issues of evidence. But is there such a thing as scientifically objective<BR/>biography? The proper recording of history and human life invariably requires<BR/>interpretation. It involves, for example,<BR/>deciding which facts to include, understanding<BR/>the implications of the facts, and<BR/>deciding what weight or emphasis to give<BR/>to any particular aspect of the discussion.<BR/>Inevitably, therefore, it is a subjective and<BR/>fallible process. It is with Professor<BR/>Shapiro’s interpretation — his judging of the evidence, and his arguments — that I take issue.<BR/>I am content, however, to let his book, and my review, be judged by the rigorous academic standards of proof (beyond reasonable<BR/>doubt, or on a balance of probabilities?)<BR/>which he has himself chosen.<BR/>Professor Shapiro says that my reference to an “alleged” early “flirtation” by<BR/>Rabbi Weinberg with Haskalah and modern<BR/>Hebrew literature is designed to<BR/>induce the “unsuspecting” reader (sic) ”to believe that there is no real proof for this.”<BR/>Once again, we are back to proof. Rabbi Weinberg was undoubtedly interested in<BR/>Haskalah and modern Hebrew literature.<BR/>But does interest equal “flirtation”?15 One<BR/>can be interested in many things without flirting with them.<BR/>Flirtation suggests an emotional, as<BR/>opposed to intellectual, involvement.<BR/>Indeed, that is precisely what Professor Shapiro implies:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Professor Shapiro defends his use of<BR/>private correspondence, on the grounds<BR/>that his book is a biography, rather than hagiography (ignoring the fact that I myself praised it precisely because it is “a<BR/>complete and realistic biography,” and<BR/>not popular hagiography of the genre so popular nowadays, which I deplore as much as he).<BR/>Professor Shapiro’s analogy to “writing a<BR/>history of a president using only his public statements” is inappropriate. Political leaders try, above all, to woo and win the<BR/>support of the public, upon whom their<BR/>power and image depend. Their public<BR/>statements are therefore almost invariably<BR/>not an accurate reflection of their real views.<BR/>A gadol baTorah, however, is not an<BR/>elected politician. He acquires his status<BR/>by means of an unwritten consensus,<BR/>shaped by the collective wisdom of the<BR/>Jewish people. A posek, furthermore, is deemed to have a degree of integrity and<BR/>consistency which puts him above seeking popular approval of his halachic views.<BR/>His public writings, therefore, are likely to<BR/>constitute a truer reflection of his viewpoints<BR/>than his private correspondence,<BR/>which often requires interpretation or<BR/>background information. I prefer, therefore,<BR/>to read Rabbi Weinberg’s private correspondence<BR/>in the light of what we know<BR/>of his public writings, rather than the reverse.<BR/>I agree with Professor Shapiro that<BR/>books should be judged based solely on<BR/>their content and the evidence presented<BR/>by the author.24 I know nothing at all<BR/>about the professor’s background or Torah education, and I repeat that I certainly did<BR/>not mean to criticize or belittle him in any<BR/>of these respects. Judging the<BR/>book dispassionately, however, on its contents<BR/>and evidence, my conclusion was<BR/>(and is) that it contains observations<BR/>which are unsupported by the evidence,<BR/>deductions which are flawed,<BR/>assertions which are at best speculative,<BR/>and conclusions which<BR/>are unjustified.<BR/>I did not suggest that a non-Muslim<BR/>cannot offer insights about Islam, or that<BR/>Professor Shapiro cannot offer, and has<BR/>not offered, insights into Rabbi Weinberg’s<BR/>life. I would hardly have described his<BR/>work as “fascinating, impressive, and<BR/>reflecting meticulous study and careful<BR/>research” if that were my opinion.<BR/>Insights are one thing, however, and weaknesses<BR/>are another.<BR/>Professor Shapiro is upset by my comments<BR/>about an “outsider’s” ability to<BR/>properly evaluate a great Torah personality.<BR/>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<BR/>referred in my footnotes to<BR/>pp. 8-10 and 27-30.<BR/>In the first passage, Rabbi Weinberg<BR/>describes, 50 years (!) after leaving<BR/>Slobodka, the “electric shock” he experienced<BR/>when hearing a Yom Kippur talk by<BR/>Rabbi Isaac Blazer — a “giant,” “divine guide,” “as close to an angel as a human being can ever be.” Each year, as he says,<BR/>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<BR/>things which fill our souls and bring<BR/>excitement to our hearts. Our life, in our eyes, is holy, and our purpose is clear.”<BR/>These passages highlight what is perhaps<BR/>the fundamental distinction between the Torah world and the academic world. As a law student, I was (sometimes) intellectually<BR/>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<BR/>holy face, awesome scenes, or timeless<BR/>faith, because all of these things were totally<BR/>lacking in that world. And when I<BR/>taught, say, the concept of criminal foresight,<BR/>I did not feel the excitement of<BR/>which Rabbi Weinberg speaks, and which<BR/>I experience when giving a shiur on the sugya of psik reisha (even though the subject-matter25 is very similar).<BR/>To be a talmid chacham (rather than, say, a scholar of Talmud) one has to emotionally appreciate the joy and holiness of Torah.<BR/>To be a posek, that joy and holiness has to<BR/>suffuse one’s whole being, to the point that one’s personality, moral and ethical sensibilities,<BR/>and life-purpose, are altered and<BR/>affected. This is what Rabbi Weinberg was depicting.<BR/>And that — notwithstanding his breadth<BR/>of vision, and his appreciation of the<BR/>academic world — is the life he lived<BR/>and exemplified.26<BR/>No academic scholar (however much he<BR/>enjoys Torah) shares these perspectives.<BR/>What is the particular singularity, and perhaps<BR/>even essence of, the Torah world,<BR/>becomes unacceptable in the academic<BR/>world. There all that counts is evidence and content; teachers are not moral guides, and the subject studied is not intended to<BR/>alter or affect one’s moral ethos. One’s findings are all the better when coming from the perspective of a dispassionate<BR/>observer, standing “outside” his subject.<BR/>Professor Shapiro’s book reflects that academic<BR/>approach, and I<BR/>do not believe he would want it to be<BR/>otherwise.<BR/>Although it is a fine approach to adopt when writing, say, a biography of an American president, I believe that it crucially<BR/>— and adversely — affects the validity<BR/>of one’s assessment when writing about<BR/>a gadol baTorah. Inevitably it means that the assessment will lack an experiential<BR/>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.”27Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1138288553247844512006-01-26T10:15:00.000-05:002006-01-26T10:15:00.000-05:00Sorry, that should have been Kol Tuv.Anyway, I was...Sorry, that should have been Kol Tuv.<BR/>Anyway, I was thinking about why Chazal didn't even take the possibility of human authorship seriously or spend any serious effort to debunk it.<BR/>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.<BR/>I we can't see it or feel it, then it's a fairy tale to us.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>Same is true with Chazal's confidence in the truth of Moshe's prophesy and it's unbroken tradition.<BR/>They lived and breathed it with every fiber of their being. It was as basic a reality as not being adopted.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1138238783602461312006-01-25T20:26:00.000-05:002006-01-25T20:26:00.000-05:00To Saul: Sorry i skipped a day. I was trying to fi...To Saul:<BR/> Sorry i skipped a day. I was trying to find to sources to present to you in this comment. Thank you for bearing with me.<BR/>I hope you can discern where I added my new response to this dialogue.<BR/>I put your previous comments in quotation marks. My new response follows those quotes.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>Rather it is about the competing values that Ezra would have hypothetically been faced with- in deciding to intentionaly FALSIFY sacred liturature. <<BR/><BR/>"I would say “reconstruct,” not “falsify.”"<BR/><BR/>This contradicts the scenario that you constructed for me to respond to above:<BR/>You asked:<BR/>“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?”<BR/><BR/>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”.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>I don’t know what you mean by “the survival of yiddishkeit” Maybe this is the root of our disagreement.<BR/>I define the survival of Yiddishkeit as the historical continuity of the original religion as established by its founders.<BR/>Once you deviate from the original religion, then you have lost Yiddishkeit and now have neo-yiddishkeit.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>Now here you are completely changing the topic.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>You need to posit that there was someone capable of producing false beliefs/texts and then successfully pass them off as authentic.<BR/>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.<<BR/><BR/>“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.”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Here comes the main problem:<BR/> <BR/>“ 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?<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>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.<BR/>I think I’m starting to understand.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>>Let's take the multiple names of G-d which is the bread and butter of DH.<BR/>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!<BR/>Of course they picked upon this!<<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/> You only seem to be interested in having the sages recognize that divinity should be called into question and they should have addressed it. <BR/>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.<BR/> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"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." <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> you now have the burden of proof to bring evidence that blatant falsification took place.<<BR/><BR/>"I have no such burden, because I am not alleging it took place. I am alleging that <BR/>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." <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>If you want positive evidence to accept my non-fish story, that's Rabbi Gottlieb's department...<BR/><BR/>"I will show the defects in R. Gottlieb’s Kuzari “proof” in due course."<BR/><BR/>Waiting to hear it.<BR/><BR/>>You said:<BR/>"Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?"<BR/>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. <<BR/><BR/>"Really? Aren’t we allowed to violate almost all dinim to save a life?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/> “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.”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/>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. <BR/>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 .<BR/>It is cited by R’ Moshe Feinstein as legally binding ruling in O.C. 5- 25;21 (found in Vol.8) <BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/> 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? <BR/>Therefore we must conclude that rather we are obligated to endure martyrdom.<BR/>And if one were to actually alter one halacha, he is a denier (“kofer”) of the Torah of Moshe.<BR/> <BR/>I think this is roughly what you were asking me for.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>>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.<<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>This dilemma is directly addressed by the Yam Shel Shlomo quoted above.<BR/><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>Kol Yuv,<BR/>FKMFreelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1138224586417100602006-01-25T16:29:00.000-05:002006-01-25T16:29:00.000-05:00Saul, please email me. dbmin9@NOSPAM.aol.comthanks...Saul, please email me. dbmin9@NOSPAM.aol.com<BR/><BR/>thanks.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1138072249596201322006-01-23T22:10:00.000-05:002006-01-23T22:10:00.000-05:00To Freelance KM:>But first let me see if I underst...To Freelance KM:<BR/><BR/>>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?<BR/>If so, your question isn't about OUR ability or inability to verify or reconstruct a potentialy distorted text.<<BR/><BR/>Correct. That’s not my IMMEDIATE question.<BR/><BR/>>Rather it is about the competing values that Ezra would have hypothetically been faced with- in deciding to intentionaly FALSIFY sacred liturature. <<BR/><BR/>I would say “reconstruct,” not “falsify.”<BR/><BR/>>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.<<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>You remarked:<BR/>"Classic Rabbinic writings" are, unfortunately, irrelevant. As I've said above:"<BR/>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!) <<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>Saul said:<BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>You need to posit that there was someone capable of producing false beliefs/texts and then successfully pass them off as authentic.<BR/>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.<<BR/><BR/>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?"<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>Let's take the multiple names of G-d which is the bread and butter of DH.<BR/>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!<BR/>Of course they picked upon this!<<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>I asked:<BR/>“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? <BR/><BR/>“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."<BR/><BR/>You responded to me as follows:<BR/><BR/>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.<<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>> you now have the burden of proof to bring evidence that blatant falsification took place.<<BR/><BR/>I have no such burden, because I am not alleging it took place. I am alleging that <BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I will show the defects in R. Gottlieb’s Kuzari “proof” in due course.<BR/><BR/>>You said:<BR/>"Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?"<BR/>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. <<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>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.<<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>> 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.<<BR/><BR/>No. It would contribute to a REALISTIC PORTRAIT of that Gadol. It would merely make him look human, which is not permissible.<BR/><BR/>> 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.<<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>> 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.<<BR/><BR/>This may be true to a great extent after 300 BCE. We have no idea what happened before that.<BR/><BR/>> My friend, have you heard of Halachic and Aggadic midrash? The Mechilta, Toras Cohanim, Sifra, Sifri?<BR/>Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma? All of them directly or indirectly provide resolutions to problems in the text.<BR/><BR/>Do you know how many redundancies and inconsistencies of the Chumash are explained on EVERY OTHER PAGE of the Talmud??<<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>>The list of resolutions to DH type problems is virtually endless.<<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps Ezra was the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1138058831565595922006-01-23T18:27:00.000-05:002006-01-23T18:27:00.000-05:00Continued from above:"There is no concept of "the ...Continued from above:<BR/><BR/>"There is no concept of "the Noble Lie" in all our tradition in reference to history, scholarship and texts."<BR/>Saul said:<BR/>"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?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>First of all, Biographies are not the works of "classic Rabbinic scholarship" in any sense of the word.<BR/>You cannot use this genre to understand the integrity of an Ezra the Scribe.<BR/><BR/>But secondly, you are misreading this genre altogether.<BR/>I don't think R' Schwab advocated any falsification of true events.<BR/>He simply meant that a Gadol Biography is an educational tool to appreciate the immese greatness of a Torah personality.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>When it comes to a biography, there is an objective way of sifting through the facts to know which ones are considered "representative".<BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>If you would rather be unprotected and make the assessment for yourself, I can understand that. <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/> Saul said:<BR/>"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?"<BR/><BR/>My friend, have you heard of Halachic and Aggadic midrash? The Mechilta, Toras Cohanim, Sifra, Sifri?<BR/>Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma? All of them directly or indirectly provide resolutions to problems in the text.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>Have you heard of the phrase "Shamor VeZachor BiDibbur Echad Ne'Emru"?<BR/>The list of resolutions to DH type problems is virtually endless.<BR/><BR/>Let's take the multiple names of G-d which is the bread and butter of DH.<BR/>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!<BR/>Of course they picked upon this! <BR/><BR/>"Don't make me laugh."<BR/>Indeed.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1138056008469563522006-01-23T17:40:00.000-05:002006-01-23T17:40:00.000-05:00To Saul:I don't think you understood my point. Let...To Saul:<BR/><BR/>I don't think you understood my point. Let me clarify by commenting on your response.<BR/>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?<BR/>If so, your question isn't about OUR ability or inability to verify or reconstruct a potentialy distorted text.<BR/>Rather it is about the competing values that Ezra would have hypothetically been faced with- in deciding to intentionaly FALSIFY sacred liturature. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>You remarked:<BR/> "Classic Rabbinic writings" are, unfortunately, irrelevant. As I've said above:"<BR/><BR/>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!) <BR/><BR/>Next:<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Saul said:<BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>You need to posit that there was someone capable of producing false beliefs/texts and then successfully pass them off as authentic.<BR/> 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.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?"<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>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.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137981856372264922006-01-22T21:04:00.000-05:002006-01-22T21:04:00.000-05:00To Freelance Kiruv Maniac:"There is no concept of ...To Freelance Kiruv Maniac:<BR/><BR/>"There is no concept of "the Noble Lie" in all our tradition in reference to history, scholarship and texts."<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>"Ruthlessly critical" when it comes to the integrity of the Torah's text or of the mesorah?<BR/><BR/>Don't make me laugh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137971216291723952006-01-22T18:06:00.000-05:002006-01-22T18:06:00.000-05:00Reb Aaron:You asked me what I must assume were sin...Reb Aaron:<BR/><BR/>You 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.<BR/><BR/>Kol tuv,<BR/>SaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137970884165456072006-01-22T18:01:00.000-05:002006-01-22T18:01:00.000-05:00"Classic Rabbinic writings" are, unfortunately, ir..."Classic Rabbinic writings" are, unfortunately, irrelevant. As I've said above:<BR/><BR/>"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.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Again, accepting my hypothetical, what would Ezra have been required by halacha to do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137967829779911202006-01-22T17:10:00.000-05:002006-01-22T17:10:00.000-05:00With all due respect to you honesty and sincerity,...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.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/> 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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I think you are invoking a non-Jewish paradigm of utility over truth. Our entire religion rejects such an approach to Jewish belief.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137922365122119992006-01-22T04:32:00.000-05:002006-01-22T04:32:00.000-05:00FKM:Setting aside your question for a moment, coul...FKM:<BR/><BR/>Setting 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?<BR/><BR/>Think hard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137913707347686942006-01-22T02:08:00.000-05:002006-01-22T02:08:00.000-05:00You're assuming "national unforgettables" would no...You're assuming "national unforgettables" would not be accepted unless they really happened. This is not so, as I shall demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>You 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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137884460209198892006-01-21T18:01:00.000-05:002006-01-21T18:01:00.000-05:00To Saul:If you cannot give us examples of the kind...To Saul:<BR/><BR/>If 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.<BR/>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?)<BR/><BR/>So I think we're back to R' Gottlieb's argument without a refutation.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137643113034087512006-01-18T22:58:00.000-05:002006-01-18T22:58:00.000-05:00has the rav tried cropping the empty areas on the ...<A HREF="http://rabbifleischmann.blogspot.com/2005/08/does-rav-blog.html" REL="nofollow">has the rav</A> tried cropping the empty areas on the sides out of the picture, to make it as a whole narrower?Steg (dos iz nit der šteg)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07694556690190505030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137619583413292732006-01-18T16:26:00.000-05:002006-01-18T16:26:00.000-05:00Reb Aaron:Any thoughts on my response to your inte...Reb Aaron:<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts on my response to your interesting question?<BR/><BR/>SaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137553269824986762006-01-17T22:01:00.000-05:002006-01-17T22:01:00.000-05:00Reb Baruch!!!Peace and blessing to you! - ben blog...Reb Baruch!!!<BR/><BR/>Peace and blessing to you! <BR/><BR/>- ben blog blog (Aaron)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137527502423311952006-01-17T14:51:00.000-05:002006-01-17T14:51:00.000-05:00I noticed the thing with the picture, but I have n...I noticed the thing with the picture, but I have no idea how to fix it!Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137527189090853972006-01-17T14:46:00.000-05:002006-01-17T14:46:00.000-05:00This isn't directly relevant to this post, and you...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.Steg (dos iz nit der šteg)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07694556690190505030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137504865573707732006-01-17T08:34:00.000-05:002006-01-17T08:34:00.000-05:00On why you imposed comment moderation:>I was getti...On why you imposed comment moderation:<BR/><BR/>>I was getting some nasty comments from an anonymous source - attacks without content. <<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137501884937307192006-01-17T07:44:00.000-05:002006-01-17T07:44:00.000-05:00Dear RYGB and Reb Aaron, Aaron when are you start...Dear RYGB and Reb Aaron,<BR/> Aaron when are you starting your own blog?<BR/><BR/>kol tov<BR/><BR/>regards from Yerushalyim<BR/><BR/>baruchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137500615596324722006-01-17T07:23:00.000-05:002006-01-17T07:23:00.000-05:00I was getting some nasty comments from an anonymou...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.Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137484441695011202006-01-17T02:54:00.000-05:002006-01-17T02:54:00.000-05:00RYGB:Comment moderation is an extreme step, genera...RYGB:<BR/><BR/>Comment 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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I've seen it happen. One fellow keeps blogging and gets not a single comment posted because of his comment moderation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137478520630398522006-01-17T01:15:00.000-05:002006-01-17T01:15:00.000-05:00Reb Aaron:Thank you for your sincere reply.It is i...Reb Aaron:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your sincere reply.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>Both of these raise profound theological problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1137476832129614562006-01-17T00:47:00.000-05:002006-01-17T00:47:00.000-05:00Dear Reb Saul,Thanks for your responses. They are ...Dear Reb Saul,<BR/><BR/>Thanks 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.<BR/><BR/>Question for you, please:<BR/>- 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.<BR/><BR/>Regards -<BR/>AaronAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com