Futile and Misleading Arguments

On several occasions over the years I have had reason to note that the wrong kind of argument is taking place. It occurs when a debate is purportedly about a certain topic, but really there is a much more fundamental difference of opinion - or epistemology - which means that the debate actually taking place is not only futile, but also misleading.

The first time that I realized this was when debating certain frum Jews about the scientific validity of evolution. It dawned on me that their claim of wanting to debate and discuss the scientific merits of evolution was a sham. They were fundamentally ideologically opposed to it, rating it as heresy. A scientific discussion, on the other hand, means drawing conclusions from the physical evidence without any preconceived notions. So there was no scientific discussion taking place, and any pretense at such a discussion was futile and misleading without the underlying theological dispute being resolved.

I just noticed another example of this in a comment thread over at Hirhurim (which, incidentally, recently featured a fascinating post about the Torah-Science controversy). In a discussion about the ikkarei emunah, a ferocious and lengthy debate - 195 comments! - took place between one Rabbi Shalom Spira and some other people. The topic was whether there have been accepted Torah authorities who acknowledged that Torah scrolls are not word-perfect, and whether there is any evidence of this. Rabbi Spira insisted that there are no such authorities and there is no such evidence, while a number of people insisted that there were and there is.

I don't know why they wasted their time.

His opponents completely missed the point. This is not a matter of whether there is evidence supporting the conclusion that there were great Torah scholars who accepted that Torah scrolls are not word-perfect, and whether there is evidence showing that they are not word-perfect. It is a matter of a religious belief. Rabbi Spira was completely open about this! I quote:

...a Jew is indeed absolutely required to accept Rambam’s eighth principle, viz. that every single word in our Sefer Torah was dictated by HaKadosh Barukh Hu to Mosheh Rabbeinu.

...the Ibn Ezra will not inform us of the Halakhah on this matter, when the gemara has already clarified what the Halakhah is. Instead, it is appropriate to give a forced explanation to the Ibn Ezra in order to judge him favourably that he was an Orthodox Jew.

...Epistemologically speaking, history is a matter of belief – not science (because all evidence we have regarding events that occurred prior to our birth is circumstantial and second-hand in nature), and the Torah governs how we are to appreciate history. When the Ribbono Shel Olam reveals Himself at Mount Sinai with the declaration “Anokhi… asher hotzeitikha me’eretz mitrayim”, it is a declaration that we must interpret history in accordance with the theological norms of Judaism. And one of those norms is to recognize that our Sifrei Torah are word perfect.

To engage in a debate about the evidence is to further enhance the mistaken impression that there is an evidence-based epistemology being used. There isn't. It is a religious debate, not a scientific or historical debate. And that is why they failed to convince him. They were engaged in the wrong argument.

Rationalist Vs. Mystical Judaism

Early on in the days of this website, I had a post defining rationalism, which is linked on the right. However, since many readers have joined since then, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss it again - this time in a little more detail, and to contrast it with its opposite. My goal with this description is to leave the definition of rationalism sufficiently vague to include both medieval rationalists and contemporary rationalists; in a future post, I plan to spell out the differences between the two. Note that my use of the word "rationalism" is not identical to the dictionary definition, but I feel that my definition (adapted from that of Rabbi Dr. David Berger) is more useful in a Jewish context. Note too that I am using the antonym of "mystic"; it's not ideal, but it's the best I could come up with. And remember that these represent two ends of the spectrum, but there is a vast range of possibilities in between.

The differences between rationalists and non-rationalists fall into three categories:

• KNOWLEDGE

Rationalists believe that knowledge is legitimately obtained by man via his reasoning and senses, and should preferably be based upon evidence/reason rather than faith, especially for far-fetched claims.

Mystics are skeptical of the ability of the human mind to arrive at truths, and prefer to base knowledge on revelation, or – for those who are not worthy of revelation – on faith in those who do experience revelation.

• NATURE

Rationalists value a naturalistic rather than supernatural interpretation of events, and perceive a consistent natural order over history - past, present and future. They tend to minimize the number of supernatural entities and forces.

Mystics prefer miracles, and believe them to be especially dominant in ancient history and the future messianic era. They tend to maximize the number of supernatural entities and forces.

• THE SERVICE OF GOD

Rationalists understand the purpose of mitzvos, and one’s religious life in general, primarily (or solely) as furthering intellectual/moral goals for the individual and society.

Mystics see mitzvos as primarily performing mechanistic manipulations of spiritual or celestial forces, with their reasons being either to accomplish this or ultimately incomprehensible.

Who in G-d's Name is "Tamechlom"?

Recently, I had the opportunity to hear someone make hamotzi for some other people (but not for me). To my surprise, the berachah was directed to a deity that I didn't recognize.

"Baruch Tamechlom hamotzi lechem min ha'aretz."

That's a verbatim transliteration of what was said. My transliteration didn't skip any syllables, although I may have subconsciously added one or two.

I've heard some other people praying to this deity, and I just don't understand it. Every other word in the berachah is enunciated properly. So why are the most important words so badly mangled? Is that particular combination of letters a tongue-twister?

I remember that in yeshivah, guys would take turns making havdalah for everyone, until this problem became so bad that the job had to be done by one person who could actually say the words properly. Surely mechanchim could teach their students how to speak Hebrew, especially the most important words of all.

Rav Elyashiv on Gedolim being Manipulated

If I recall correctly, the Gedolim to whom he refers includes Rav Shmuel Auerbach and Rav Nissim Karelitz, amongst others.

Safety is also a Mitzvah

Remember the Versailles wedding tragedy of about 15 years ago? There was a third-story event hall in Jerusalem called "Versailles" which was hosting a wedding, and the floor suddenly collapsed, killing a number of people. At the time, there were the usual people talking about how it was a Divine punishment for mixed dancing, or lack of tzniyus, etc. I recall my late publisher Rabbi Moshe Dombey z"l marveling at how they were missing the obvious. The hall had been constructed using the "Pal-Kal" method - a way of building cheap and quick. There was no need to divine any cause other than the obvious: It is dangerously irresponsible to look for quick-and-easy shortcuts in something as serious as constructing tall buildings. And responsibility in such matters as construction is also a Torah obligation, be it the mitzvah of maakeh or venishmartem es nafshosechem.

Driving a car - a potentially lethal device - is also a serious business. I recall once seeing a responsum from one of the Acharonim (I'd be indebted if someone can provide the source) about a wagon-driver who got into an accident and killed someone. It was ruled that he has to fast twice a week for several years, support the victim's family for the rest of their lives, and pray for forgiveness every night for the rest of his life. We tend to think of Torah obligations as being davenning, learning, maybe even tzedakah, but driving safely and responsibly is also a Torah obligation. In that spirit, I am presenting a very, very disturbing video about texting while driving. It is very uncomfortable to watch, but if you ever text while driving, or even talk on a cellphone (and using a hands-free unit is almost as dangerous), you must watch it.

Providence in My Life

Hashgachah pratis - Divine Providence - is a very, very difficult topic. In The Challenge Of Creation, I have a chapter devoted to exploring various aspects of it - the extent to which it operates, and the mechanism via which it works. We see that the Rishonim had a far more restricted view of providence than that which is prevalent today.

But I have to say that in my own life, I see incredible providence in all sorts of areas - marriage, career, health, home. Yes, I am aware of all the psychological explanations of how people are wired to perceive patterns where none exist. But I can't help it; there are so many things in my life that seem incredibly providential.

There is one particular area which some people have commented upon. Beginning nearly six years ago, I was the target of a campaign which caused incredible hardship for my family and myself. Today, several years later, Baruch Hashem I am fine. And where are the people who engineered this campaign and who attacked me? One rabbi, who initiated the campaign, has gone to prison for many years. Another rabbi, who was involved in rallying support for the ban and who emailed me at the time to tell me that everyone is appalled at my "nefarious" behavior, had his career and reputation destroyed when it emerged that he was involved in disgusting abuses of power involving women. The rabbi who called me from Bnei Brak to deliver the ultimatum that I must retract my books or "face scandal and humiliation," has had to flee Bnei Brak and go into hiding as a result of his involvement with a financial scandal. A Rosh Yeshivah in Bnei Brak who was also involved in engineering the campaign has had some of his talmidim renounce him in disgust as a result of his involvement with the same financial scandal. And now a rabbi who viciously attacked me in two shiurim and a public letter, who claimed to be motivated by concern for rabbinic authority, is being publicly condemned, with calls for his employers to disassociate from him, as a result of audio recordings of him insulting a distinguished rabbinic authority and equating Modern Orthodoxy with Conservative Judaism.

A Rav that I know commented on the incredible display of Divine poetic justice here. Indeed! But in this particular category of providential events in my life, I can see how it can be reconciled with a certain view of providence. According to this view, providence does not mean God actually intervening, but rather that He has set things up such that those who engage in evil eventually bring destruction upon themselves, while those who pursue good find peace and tranquility. In this situation, it means that people who engage in vicious acts of kanna'us are usually people who are trying to make up for huge shortcomings in their own life, and/or vicious people who eventually go too far. Either way, they end up with their just desserts.

Approaching the Yamim Nora'im, and the sixth anniversary of that fateful call from Bnei Brak, I find this message not only inspirational, but also very timely.

Reconciling the Irreconcilable

Rabbi Gil Student has posted an interesting and extremely well-written review of my booklet on shiluach hakein. After some much-appreciated praise of my work, he concludes by saying that he disagrees with my conclusion that the rationalist and mystical approaches to shiluach hakein are irreconcilable:

The upshot is that the Rationalist and Mystical approaches are not mutually exclusive. Mitzvah observance can improve a person’s character and also have metaphysical resonance.

I don't dispute this in theory; there's no reason why a mitzvah can't have more than one function and benefit. But I do dispute it with regard to the specific case of the Zohar's explanation of shiluach hakein. R. Student argues as follows:

While I find his study useful, I am unconvinced by R. Slifkin’s dichotomy. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Yes, one sees the sending away of the mother as an act of compassion and the other as an act of cruelty, but they can both be true. It is, from a bird’s perspective, tragic that her eggs are taken and she is sent away, but it is still a more merciful and compassionate way of taking the eggs.

There are two points to discuss here:

1. Would/ did the Rishonim/ Acharonim have accepted this reconciliation?

2. Can we accept this reconciliation?

Let's begin with the first question. Obviously Rambam and others who rejected kabbalah would not accept the Zohar's mystical explanation of the mitzvah (and I am not sure that Rambam would accept R. Chaim's view that a ta'am for a mitzvah is just a taste, not the reason). Furthermore, R. Student is forced to adopt the mystical position that it is praiseworthy to send away the bird even if one does not want the eggs; but Rambam explicitly writes that the Torah's ideal is that one will leave the nest alone entirely.

R. Student points to Ramban who says that there are mystical reasons for shiluach hakein as well as compassion. But Ramban does not give the specific mystical reason of the Zohar, so this is not relevant. As mentioned earlier, I am not pointing to an inherent conflict between rationalist and mystical explanations of mitzvos across the board, but rather to the specific mystical explanation given by the Zohar.

Clearly some later authorities, such as R. Baruch Epstein, saw the mystical approach as irreconcilable with the rationalist approach: "It is clear that the Torah is only granting an allowance with this, but with someone who does not all want to involve himself, it is certain that he is permitted to simply pass it by. In fact, he is making things even better for the mother and young by leaving them together."

And so on. I think that an analysis of the Rishonim and Acharonim will show that, at least for the most part, they were taking either the rationalist or mystical approach, and rejecting the other.

But is it possible to create a reconciliation, along the lines that R. Student suggests - "It is, from a bird’s perspective, tragic that her eggs are taken and she is sent away, but it is still a more merciful and compassionate way of taking the eggs"?

As appealing as this may be, I'm afraid that it's trying to square a circle. From the mystical perspective that the Zohar's explanation is correct, and the point of the mitzvah is to arouse Divine compassion upon the Jewish People by causing distress to the mother bird, doesn't this mean that there is a correlation between the amount of distress caused and the amount of compassion brought for the nation - and if so, why would one minimize the amount of distress by not having the bird witness you taking her young? Isn't it better for the nation that she is more distressed? And why not be cruel to non-kosher birds and other creatures, in order to have their angels complain and further bring about compassion upon the Jewish People? Wouldn't that be in the spirit of the mitzvah - or at least a good way to improve our national fate?

Conversely, from the rationalist perspective, there's simply no reason to postulate the explanation (and subsequent ramifications) of the Zohar - which is why the Rishonim didn't do so - besides the issue of whether it has any credibility as an authoritative source (as per Chasam Sofer). Furthermore, it goes against the entire worldview of the rationalist approach, as explained in my essay. One earns Divine compassion by being compassionate, not by mechanistic manipulations of angels and God which involve committing precisely the sort of acts that are ordinarily antithetical to Torah values.

We like to think of Judaism as a homogeneous, unified entity. It would certainly make our lives simpler if it were that way. Unfortunately, it's just not the case. But maybe one can take a more positive perspective on this, and conclude that Judaism has developed into a way of life that can offer meaning to very different types of people. (Although in the specific case of shiluach hakein, I can't say that I'm comfortable with the meaning that it offers to mystics!)