Comments on Rationalist Judaism: The Complete Review of Sefer Chaim Be’Emunasom

@Ephraim: "I'm full of very directed disa...

2009-09-09T16:17:39.449+03:00

@Ephraim: "I'm full of very directed disappointment in "Gedolim" whose knowledge of Torah and the world is much too narrow"

I think you should add the words: "in the areas I deem important."

R' Wolbe, in Alei Shur, in the section on k...

2009-09-08T10:34:20.624+03:00
R' Wolbe, in Alei Shur, in the section on kaas (I was just explicating this to our mussar vaad last night) speaks very strongly against this kind of defeatist attitude.

You also misunderstood the whole point of what I wrote. I didn't say "there is nothing we can do", I said, "this is not our obligation", and I was explicitly addressing the claim of some here that we have to distort the Torah and basically lie to people so that they don't go "off the derech". Being opposed to this has nothing to do with the issue of hishtadlus, bitachon, or anything related.

Ephraim is apparently full of undirected anger....

2009-09-08T10:30:19.879+03:00
Ephraim is apparently full of undirected anger. I'm sorry, but there's not much I can say to that. Whatever I say will likely be dismissed.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis, but it's much more simple. I'm full of very directed disappointment in "Gedolim" whose knowledge of Torah and the world is much too narrow and who unfortunately refuse to admit that obvious fact.

This entire approach leaves me very conflicted. On...

2009-09-08T04:27:18.751+03:00
This entire approach leaves me very conflicted. On the one hand the approach of the Maharal seems preferable to people who claim that the Tanaim and Amoraim were completely correct about all scientific matters, but it seems like the approach of the Maharal simply isn't born out by the source texts. Regardless, Rabbi Schmeltzer's approach, claiming that the approach of the Maharal is the only valid approach, seems to be even more distasteful and outright intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous, it might not be immediately obvious to the individual that GPS relies on so much of our understanding of astronomy. Maybe you should ask the individual if he thinks that we have have sent probes to other planets.

@Avishai: "The scientific inquiry was totally...

2009-09-08T01:37:55.512+03:00
@Avishai: "The scientific inquiry was totally alien to the sages of old, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. "

I generally agree with your post, but I think the above statement is overstating the case. In this article,
http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_method.html
Gil Student argues, "What we will see is that the sages were similarly concernced with scientific reality. They conducted experiments and consulted with experts to determine how halacha should be applied. "

Ephraim is apparently full of undirected anger. I...

2009-09-08T01:08:17.871+03:00
Ephraim is apparently full of undirected anger. I'm sorry, but there's not much I can say to that. Whatever I say will likely be dismissed.

E.g., "Why are we all so concerned about preserving Klal Yisrael, which is the Ribbono Shel Olam's responsibility, rather than worrying about pursuing truth, which is our obligation?"

R' Wolbe, in Alei Shur, in the section on kaas (I was just explicating this to our mussar vaad last night) speaks very strongly against this kind of defeatist attitude. (well, his point was more inner-directed, but it's similar to this situation) It leads to weakness of emunah.

We have to each do what we can, take baby steps, if we fall down get up again and try again, and eventually succeed, with God's help. If we look at the job and either say "It's too big for me" or try to do too much too quickly and quickly fail, and then say "I give up, it's in God's hands", the goal will not be advanced.

We have to do our shtadlonus, and not give up on ourselves. "Let Go and Let God" is a twelve-stepper idea, not a Jewish idea. Sure it's God's business, but by the same "imitatio dei" token, it's our business, through "kol yisrael areivim zeh lazeh," "lo taamod al dam rei'echa," and similar verse sentiments, to care about Klal Yisrael.

Think Globally, Act Locally.

Science as known to us during the last 200 years w...

2009-09-07T20:56:26.592+03:00
Science as known to us during the last 200 years was not known to hazal. They looked at the nature and came up with ad-hoc explanations. The scientific inquiry was totally alien to the sages of old, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. Hazal discussed what they thought they knew at the time, and what they knew factually was very little or totally erroneous compared to what we know today. The attempts to rectify the conflict between modern knowledge and old writing is pathetic at best. I still hear from yeshiva bochers that the Planet Earth is fixed and the sun goes around the earth, because "shemesh b'Givon dom etc" . The same bocher, BTW uses GPS in his car! Science is a democratic-egalitarian enterprise, the conclusion of science are imposed on us. Our religion is a choice. The very thought that science will eventually "prove" divery chachmim shows very little understanding of both science and religion.
Avishai

This is why many talmidim of Rav Moshe Shapiro ...

2009-09-07T17:35:36.458+03:00
This is why many talmidim of Rav Moshe Shapiro have become ex-talmidim of Rav Moshe Shapiro over the last few years.

I happen to be one of them, after trying to get any kind of a straight answer out of him, first in a letter an then in person. I don't know about anyone else here, but I am old enough to remember when Rav Moshe was still an accessible person who sat in the Beis Midrash with his talmidim (not like when I spoke to him a few years ago, when I had to wait outside a locked door for an 'audience' with him), and, more importantly, was intellectually honest enough to admit to mistakes, both in and out of shiur.

I learned by him 30 years ago at Ohr Somayach, and maintained contact with him for many years afterwards, but today I cannot bring myself to take him seriously, after he has associated himself with this kind of obscurantism. Yes, he is a big genius. So what? No matter what you want to believe, you can find some genius who supports it. Character is much more important, and I have not been impressed with his recently.

http://hebrewbooks.org/5302 Check out pages 8-9.

2009-09-07T15:11:42.893+03:00
http://hebrewbooks.org/5302

Check out pages 8-9.

Ephraim, good point. On my website, I have dozens ...

2009-09-07T15:07:02.391+03:00
Ephraim, good point. On my website, I have dozens of letters from people whose emunah was harmed by rebbeim insisting on the Chaim B'Emunasam- type approach.

"and the Ruzhiner are to be ignored" Wh...

2009-09-07T15:05:05.664+03:00
"and the Ruzhiner are to be ignored"

Where is this Ruzhiner?

But undermining the faith of the rank and file ...

2009-09-07T14:04:51.194+03:00
But undermining the faith of the rank and file is a dangerous undertaking

Do the 'rank and file' really believe that Chazal knew everything about modern science (or knew better)?

I think the opposite is the case; "Chaim b'Emunosom" is the one who is "undermining faith" of today's "simple Jew" who assumes that Judaism is compatible with the knowledge that he has of the real world.

By the way, Student, if you'd like to understa...

2009-09-07T12:46:07.297+03:00
By the way, Student, if you'd like to understand the Rambam in the Perush, see the comments on Hirhurim on this post: http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/08/reviewing-critique.html

I know that Lawrence Kaplan is an academic, but you hold of Rambam, so you surely hold of the principle that one should "Accept the truth from wherever it comes."

In fact, I can quote from letters I received from ...

2009-09-07T12:42:17.840+03:00
In fact, I can quote from letters I received from Roshei Yeshivah in Lakewood and elsewhere, insisting that the Moreh is rejected, not that it is secretly a kabbalistic work!

The derech of the Rambam in the Moreh differs t...

2009-09-07T12:41:09.352+03:00
The derech of the Rambam in the Moreh differs than elsewhere, and does warrant a detailed explanation, and Rav Schmelczer does devote an entire section towards the traditional understanding of the Moreh.

I think you meant to say "NON-traditional." The traditional way is that of R. Shmuel Ibn Tibbon, the authorized translator, and co.

suffice it to say that the Moreh is not rejected in any form by the Roshei Yeshiva, both Rav Shapiro and Rav Weintraub cite it frequently in their lectures, and they disagree with your analysis that Moreh indicates Rambam shared a view or perspective other than the traditional Mesorah.

You are really detached even from the Charedi reality. Standard charedi doctrine is not that the Moreh is secretly a kabbalistic work; rather, it is that it was written before the revelations of kabbalah and is now obsolete. It most certainly is rejected; Rav Elyashiv said so explicitly. Or is Rav Elyashiv also an "ignorant academic"?

It is not the Roshei Yeshiva who refuse to deba...

2009-09-07T12:38:04.426+03:00
It is not the Roshei Yeshiva who refuse to debate with you who are dishonest and have no courage,

Dishonest? No courage? Is this "opposite day"?

By the way, why don't you use your real name? Lack of courage perhaps?

rather, it is you, who can only compete in a world of virtual reality, but not in the Bais Medrash

What is that even supposed to mean? Either you can demolish my case, or you can't.

It is only on a computer screen that you actually believe that your own ideas can be equated with Maharal, Vilna Gaon, and AriZ”l, not to mention Rav Moshe Shapiro, Rav Wachtfogel, Rav Hillel, Rav Weintraub and all the others.

In print, too. And it's not my own ideas, it's those of countless RIshonim and Acharonim.

Let's pick Rav Hirsch's essay as an example. What do you say about that?

Please know and recognize that the leaders and ...

2009-09-07T12:34:32.624+03:00
Please know and recognize that the leaders and scholars of the Yeshiva world who reject the ideas of Natan Slifkin, Marc Shapiro, Irving Greenberg, et al,

Don't forget to include Rav Hirsch, Rav Herzog, Rav Elyshiv, Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky, and Rav Aharon Feldman, etc!

do so not out of ignorance, nor out of blind obedience to their own rabbis, and not out of a refusal to ‘address the major questions that are raised’, but rather, they reject these ideas because they think you are silly and mistaken, and are reflective of the fact that you don’t have a living Mesorah.

It's true, I don't have a living mesorah, Rav Aryeh Carmell died two years ago.

You are not taken seriously because you don’t know how to learn, and pretend scholarly credentials.

Always a great excuse not to have to actually provide arguments to back up one's position!

In short, you cannot cite ONE REPUTABLE SOURCE ...

2009-09-07T12:32:01.475+03:00
In short, you cannot cite ONE REPUTABLE SOURCE to indicate that there exists varied and diverse approaches to Judaism.

I didn't cite one, I cited dozens. Of course, you would say that they are, by definition, not reputable! Hirsch is not from our Beis HaMidrash, Rabbeinu Avraham is a forgery, Maharam Schick and the Ruzhiner are to be ignored, Rav Herzog is a Zionist, the Rishonim on Pesachim 94b were only speaking about the chitzoniyos ha-inyan even though nobody every mentioned that before, etc.

You can only point to particular citations which you claim justify your approach, but where are the like-minded thinkers who understood the Torah as you do, and have adopted this idea of 'differnt schools of thought?'

Rabbeinu Avraham, Rav Hirsch, Rav Herzog, Rav Nadel, etc. Heck, I don't need even need to quote them, how about Rav Aharon Feldman and Rav Elyashiv? They fully agree that there was a different school of thought - they just say that "they could say it, we cannot."

The Roshei Yeshiva you criticize are not ignoring the Rambam, on the contrary, they have studied the Rambam very carefully and adhere to his approach, accepting all the Ikkarim.

I'd love to hear how they explain this Rambam according to R. Schmeltzer's approach, and how they justify REARRANGING the order of Rambam's words!

a student said... I have studied every citatio...

2009-09-07T12:27:32.202+03:00
a student said...
I have studied every citation that you quote from the Rambam in your critique. Not one of them is support for the ‘rational’ approach that you claim is his, but instead, these citations indicate only that you do not know how to learn.

Ah, the classic response! Wow, you shot me down!

Actually, that is a much more rational possibility than your claim: that the Maskimim - among them Rav Moshe Shapiro and Rav Elya Weintraub, both of whom know every word of the Rambam backwards and forwards and claim fealty to his approach - have somehow missed the fact that you have discovered: that Rambam’s approach is different than the accepted norm)

You think that THEIR approach is the accepted norm?! Forget about the last 800 years of scholarship, forget about Centrist Orthodoxy - even in much of the Charedi yeshivah world, the approach of this sefer is seen as being bizarre. Ask around!

Though the Rambam does differentiate between different aspects of Talmudic law, this does not deny his prior statement that all of Torah SheBaalPeh is MiSinai.

Of course not - because Rambam does not use the term "Torah SheBaal Peh" to refer to every word in the Vilna Shas.

In the prior citation, he refers to the Source of all Torah, and all the Talmud and TorahShebaalPeh is indeed MiSinai. This is the only point that Rav Schmelczer makes.

And this is false. Because Rambam says very clearly that there are several categories of statements in the Gemara that are not MiSinai.

The citations that seem to indicate otherwise do not reflect anything different, but instead, are all referring to ’Hachra’ah’ - the derivation of law.

Er, no. Rambam speaks about decrees that were innovated by Chazal.

The conclusion of the Gemara is not always apparent, and not every Halacha or conclusion is MiSinai, but rather, are often in the hands of the Rabbanim, who lead the generations in a particular Hanhaga.

So now you're saying that it's not all from Sinai? Now you're a heretic too!

The Rambam differentiates these types of derived laws from Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai, where the Hanhaga is determined through revelation or the equivalent, and not human derivation, but this does not warrant your conclusion.

And what "equivalent" to Sinaitic revelation would you be talking about? On the contrary, Rambam explicitly states that disputes arose because of the limitations of the human intellect, and that different decrees were enacted because of differing ideas as to what was neccessary.

The Rambam indicates nowhere that TorahShebaalPeh itself, and the ideas and source material contained in the Gemara, are not all from Sinai

You mean, apart from his explicit statements to that effect?
Of course Rambam did not believe that Torah SheBaal Peh is not from Sinai - because Rambam defined Torah SheBaal Peh as that which IS from Sinai. But he explains that the Gemara contains lots of other things apart from that.

Because you and other secular-trained professors misunderstand these basic ideas...

Yes, along with plenty of rabbonim in the yeshivah world... why don't you go ask Rav Aharon Feldman, or better yet, Rav Elyashiv? Or just ask around in Lakewood and Mir, see if everyone learns the Rambam in the same way as you.

that is not reason for Rav Shmelczer to spend time addressing your mistakes

Uh-huh. And why is it neccessary for him to reverse the order of Rambam's words?

You'll never convince these people, and you...

2009-09-07T12:12:21.212+03:00
You'll never convince these people, and you shouldn't even try, because they regard this idea (distortion though it may be) as a foundation stone of their Judaism.

Thanbo, you're right that for some people, if these Gedolim are wrong, then Judaism is wrong. But those kinds of people are never going to take my critique seriously anyway. The only people who will take it seriously are those who are able to open their minds a little - and those people will understand that there is more to Orthodox Judaism that these particular rabbonim.

Let's pretend I was a follower of one of th...

2009-09-07T12:10:28.265+03:00
Let's pretend I was a follower of one of the rabbis who wrote the hakdamos, and that I agree with your analysis... I might start to have serious misgivings about my rabbi.

Phil, if you ask this rabbi, and he stands by his endorsement of this book, then the misgivings are well deserved and you probably need to find yourself a different rabbi. This is why many talmidim of Rav Moshe Shapiro have become ex-talmidim of Rav Moshe Shapiro over the last few years.

But undermining the faith of the rank and file ...

2009-09-07T12:04:18.402+03:00
But undermining the faith of the rank and file is a dangerous undertaking

If someone wants out, he'll find a way. There is no need to even step out of the Beis Midrash or take your eyes out of the Gemara. Five good "tzarich iyuns" of R. Akiva Eiger are enough to prove that the Baalei Tosafos didn't know how to learn, if that's what you want to think.

For someone who thinks, every line of Gemara is a potential "apikorsishe kasha", if that's what he's looking for. Our emunah has to be based on something other than turning off our minds. We have to start again to base our Judaism on awareness of G-d and of our own souls.

You'll never convince these people, and you...

2009-09-07T11:48:49.932+03:00
You'll never convince these people, and you shouldn't even try, because they regard this idea (distortion though it may be) as a foundation stone of their Judaism. If you could get them to doubt that, they wouldn't likely stop at rationalism, they'd more likely slide all the way through skepticism to nothing.

Who cares???

Can't anybody see that we already live in an open society for at least 200 years, and that putting your head in the sand doesn't change that? Whoever wants a life of materialist hefkerus will find a way to get it, and doesn't need any intellectual arguments at all.

Why are we all so concerned about preserving Klal Yisrael, which is the Ribbono Shel Olam's responsibility, rather than worrying about pursuing truth, which is our obligation?

Eppur si muove, or as R' Sokol has taught us r...

2009-09-07T08:07:50.689+03:00
Eppur si muove, or as R' Sokol has taught us repeatedly, you have to read Rambam on his own terms, not through the filters of commonly-accepted ideas. His ideas on Olam Haba are completely at odds with popular conceptions. His way of moderation owes a lot to Aristotle. But a lot of the yeshivish probably ignore Hilchos Deios, as well as those parts of the Shmonah Perakim that encourage, e.g., exercise as a necessary prerequisite for his (and the Greeks') ideal of mens sana in corpore sano - that one can't learn properly if one feels awful & out of shape.

On science, he follows Aristotle, as doe the Chasidim - four elements, etc. Do R' Schmeltzer and his leaders deny that there are 100+ elements? That oxygen is a separate element from hydrogen, and that water is a compound of both?

The course of contemporary psak also follws developing technology. My wife has seen a teshuvah of R' DZ Hoffman about electric light bulbs that doesn't mention the Rambam's issue of heating metal till it glows. But all modern poskim address that directly. Why the difference? Because in the time of the Melamed leHoil, electric light bulb filaments were made from carbonized vegetable fibers, while today, they are made from extruded metal wire. Could modern poskim have addressed the modern light bulb without acknowledging that science and technology change with the times?

Just to clarfiy my earlier comments - when classif...

2009-09-07T07:17:40.266+03:00
Just to clarfiy my earlier comments - when classifying your citations of the Rambam as Hachraah L'halacha, I was referring only to your citations as evidence the quotes from Hakdama L'Mishneh Torah and Periush HaMishnayos, but not to the citations from the Moreh, in which indeed Rambam does express his thoughts in different form (but not a different school of thought). The derech of the Rambam in the Moreh differs than elsewhere, and does warrant a detailed explanation, and Rav Schmelczer does devote an entire section towards the traditional understanding of the Moreh. But, suffice it to say that the Moreh is not rejected in any form by the Roshei Yeshiva, both Rav Shapiro and Rav Weintraub cite it frequently in their lectures, and they disagree with your analysis that Moreh indicates Rambam shared a view or perspective other than the traditional Mesorah.