I wish you would acknowledge the givens that drive the differences. You obviously cannot disagree with Christians about what does or does not count as “good works,” for example because you disagree with their whole religion. You’d have to say “If I were to accept your given, I would argue ABC.” L’havdil, there are major givens that distinguish you from charedim that you don’t acknowledge as such. The have a wall up against the modern world. That’s your only gripe with them. Everything else stems from this. They don’t know modern science or industry or academic approaches to knowledge of any type and they believe these corrupt (for a very long time, they were 100% right about that as an historical fact). With that heavily-reinforced wall as a given, of course they are going to approach Torah differently and end up not only with different results but entirely different methodology. I understand it’s not as simple as this but this is what drives their society. None of your arguments mean anything to them because everything about you is driven by modern values that they reject out of hand. You have one simple thing to say to them, and that’s it: Channeling Reagan, you should declare, “Charedim! Tear down that wall!”
One might also say that the two worlds have drifted further apart, with the Modern Orthodox world being more influenced by Western values and culture than previously while the haredi world has become even more insular than it was previously. I can see an intellectual argument that the two need each other, as check and balance,although I wonder to what extent there is a practical manifestation.
Regarding the haredi world, it seems to me that what has happened is that they have also withdraen from an interest in applying the Torah to practical life. I give an example not just the paucity of halachic teshuvos now coming out from the Litvishe world, but the hesitation to apply what they're learning to modern day applications.
Even in high school, the rebbes generally make no effort to apply what they are teaching to modern applications, for instance when learning Bava Kamma, even though seforim exist to help them do exactly that.
So what happens is that they are taught very early that the Torah is not something that speaks to practical life. Perhaps this then leads to a situation where as adults they continue to view Torah as something that doesn't translate to actions like supporting their families, fighting in the army, etc.
This is a very salient point. One of the most significant deviations in the community was regarding Torah lishma. Rav Chaim Volozhoner’s emphasis that Torah study was not just a glorified kitzur but that it was a highly intellectual pursuit with it’s own immeasurable worth attracted thousands and changed learning for the entire Ashkenazi world. But as happens (and as R’ Chaim himself described about Chasidim and davening times, as an example), this was taken to an extreme to the point that practical learning was no longer chashuv enough to be taken too seriously. Exacerbating this immensely was a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world that made confident applications more and more elusive and, to put it harshly, too humbling for an enterprise that depended on excitement and confidence to win over the interest of young people. But there are many in the charedi world who are actually very good at this. It just does not characterize their approach overall.
For the record, non-Eastern Europeans never had this problem.
Also, "thousands" is a bit of an exaggeration. Even on the eve of World War II there were only about a thousand people learning in all the Litvish yeshivot combined.
Medicine corrupts? Astronomy corrupts? Skills like engineering and architecture corrupt?? This is foolish and self evident that hareidim don’t actually ponder their choices but make them mindlessly.
Excellent comment. I believe another major difference lies in the belief in Divine intervention, or the lack thereof. For example, it's much easier to believe that learning Torah provides protection when one subscribes to the idea of absolute Divine intervention.
And you tend to worry less about long-term economic impacts that your spiritual decisions will have in 20 years.
As an outsider to the vast majority of this discussion, I think that asserting and believing things that are manifestly at odds with physical reality is corrupting in and of itself.
This is an excellent point in theory. In practice, it is irresponsible and I say this based on irrefutable historical evidence. I’ve made this point here recently so I will put it differently and briefly: What if the resolution of physical reality with spiritual teachings is too nuanced for the majority of people to appreciate and doing so will result in mass defections over time from the true path? We teach children things that are manifestly at odds with physical reality, don’t we? The chardedim are unapologetically paternalistic and have long ago adopted a “Noah’s Ark” approach to going through a physical world too corrupted to absorb a higher truth. Those who can appreciate the nuance should try. When I look at the MO world, and I grew up in it and live close to it, I see precious few who live the Torah’s vision successfully.
I do my best not to outright lie about physical reality to my children.
"hat if the resolution of physical reality with spiritual teachings is too nuanced for the majority of people to appreciate and doing so will result in mass defections over time from the true path?"
What sort of deity would design a reality whose study would lead people away from his chosen path? This seems like a bizarre assumption to have undergirding your philosophical system.
As far as the wisdom of Chazal in medical matters, I would say every time I run across a supposed cure of something in the Gemara, I realize it was all based on accepted wisdom . It was similar to the Greeks, who speculated on the functions of various organs in the human body, but really had no empiric or experimental knowledge of how things actually worked. this is as opposed to Chazal’s halakhic knowledge to which every Jew should totally defer.
To be fair, a lot of their scientific and medical "knowledge" was based on *something*, some sort of observation, however faulty. The problem is that once they had it, they locked it into place and refused to consider anything new.
Even the greatest kabalists don't claim chazal knew about gravity and atoms. The ramchal discusses this in his maamar on agados.
What we defer to them is that everything they did say (or at least what they decided to publish and incorporate as a body into shas as we know it) was kadosh and emes, only it was wrapped in layers, sometimes using science of their time. Personally, I don't know the answer to all the science questions and I think rabbi doctor's approach in his "heretical" book is rather reasonable, but to say that the leshem isn't someone whose opinion counts as well is a different story. Maybe chareidi gedolim thought about things but side with the leshem on some matters. It seems to me that the consensus here is that anyone who concludes by agreeing to a kabalist who agrees to some understanding of certain ancient, antiquated wisdom *must* have never thought through the issues thoroughly and is following certain trends blindly...
But the point is that someone can come out, after thinking about it, that the Zohar approach is correct and that doesn't mean he never thought about the other side, which is what you sounded like you were insinuating.
If so many of the baalei mesorah didn't have the Zohar, that says something about the Zohar too. It says either that the Zohar is a late innovation, or that the older holders of the mesorah didn't think the Zohar was worth teaching and transmitting.
You are stretching here. If it isn't what it purports to be and the provenance it rests on is a forgery what brilliant arguments within it or what truths it reveals make it authoritative?
I heard a great story when I was in medical school from a non-religious orthopedic doctor. He said one of his patients went to Lubavitcher Rebbe about his condition . The Rebbe said let me see the x-rays. The patient got the rebbe a copy of the x-rays and Rebbe said go ahead with the surgery. The patient asked, “does the Rebbe know how to read x-rays?“ The Rebbe said, “no, but I saw the name of the ordering doctor is Dr. Levin and he is a trustworthy doctor.“
One of the difficulties is that science, the branch of natural philosophy which has vastly accelerated our understanding of physical things, is not very old. People absolutely did systematic investigation of the world before then. But the methods and philosophical underpinnings really got their start between 1500-1700CE. The intellectual world of Late Antiquity was very different, and reconciling the two is a minefield.
"People absolutely did systematic investigation of the world before then". Yes, some people did empirical research, such as Aristotle (see his Biology), but it was rare.
"The intellectual world of Late Antiquity was very different, and reconciling the two is a minefield." Unclear what you mean here. Who's trying to reconcile them? Huge percentage of ancient ancient science was wrong, and has been superseded
That's not a disproof. He certainly did empirical research for his book Biology. He also relied on other authorities, as all scientists do today. And those other authorities could have been, and were, wrong
Nope. Aristotle didn't do anything of the sort. But others from Archimedes to the alchemists - the chemical engineering branch of the field - to the many Chinese scientists of whom I am sadly ignorant did such things.
What I meant by hard to reconcile wasn't that the ancients' scientific knowledge was hard to reconcile with ours. Rather the philosophical foundations of their thought including questions of how to think about the physical world were very different than ours. The differences can trip you up in unexpected ways. Stephen J. Gould ztl did a couple marvelous columns on how interpretation of the first few verses of the first book of Tanakh changed over two thousand years as a result. Well worth searching them out
"Aristotle was the first person to study biology systematically. He spent two years observing and describing the zoology of Lesbos and the surrounding seas, including in particular the Pyrrha lagoon in the centre of Lesbos. His data are assembled from his own observations, statements given by people with specialised knowledge such as beekeepers and fishermen, and less accurate accounts provided by travellers from overseas."
"What we defer to them is that everything they did say (or at least what they decided to publish and incorporate as a body into shas as we know it) was kadosh and emes, only it was wrapped in layers, sometimes using science of their time."
What does this mean? That they spoke on a level of סוד but occulted the true meaning in the language of the exoteric? Is that an implicit concession that the medical advice provided by חז"ל carries no scientific/medical weight?
Yet, how often do we this concession? Do we have a wholesale re-interpretation (or an assertion that such a re-interpretation must have existed) of Chazal's statements of science in the non-פשט fashion? Do they say that the "Slifkin School" of scholars are actually right in their rejection of פשט level interpretation of such matters?
And is such a approach found in traditional sources? Or is it a modern approach?
Ramchal makes this concession pretty openly and most chareidim I know don't find it too shocking that chazal didn't know Einstein's theory of relativity. It's complex - for example, the medicines seemed to have actually worked at the time. but matters of how they understood the relationship between the Earth and the sun seems to have a deeper layer of meaning beyond the science according to the mekubalim. Not that I understand this stuff but the gra talks about it, as do others in that camp. Idk where to say what but they seem to have a working approach.
Here is one of those pitfalls. Modern science by it's very nature changes. Sometimes those changes are in error or dead ends, but there is s mechanism for self correction however imperfect. Everything is conditional and subject to revision as our understanding improves.
When my father entered medical school the Dean told the incoming class "By the time you retire a third of what we teach you will be obsolete. Unfortunately we don't know which third." From a perspective which is based on authority and a descent from earlier perfection this would seem awful. From the perspective of philosophy of science it is a great strength.
There are methods of correction in this system as well. Just like the data has to fit the facts of the world in science, the data has to fit with the torah. We have a system of acharei rabim and the like. Unless you want to start arguing atheism in general
For the sake of completion, you should include those slogans that are abused and distorted by non-Charedim, such as כבוד הבריות and תיקון עולם.
The very words of such phrases are evocative. And the evocation tends to implying a meaning beyond the correct definition and usage. They become catchphrases that take on a life of their own, appropriated from a narrow application and assimilated into the general lexicon. There's nothing wrong with this phenomenon- that's one way language develops. The problem is when one conflates the evolved meaning with the original and declares such usage as an authentic tradition.
For those not paying attention, the charedi parties, UTJ and Shas, are currently engaged in a full-court press to convince the Israeli Left that they are on their side, telling the so-called "Hostage Families" that they are all in favor of a deal, a ceasefire, "pidyon shvuyim", a "unity government" (which, as used by everybody, means simply excluding those icky right-wing religious types and surrendering), blah blah blah.
The Left, of course, is eating it up. They hate Bibi and Ben-Gvir far more than they hate charedim, and are willing to give the charedim everything they want, the future of the country be d***ed, to get at those they hate.
(Before anyone starts, yes, that's true of Bibi as well.)
At a certain point the "datim normalim", the rationalists, the soi-disant "good" right-wingers, are going to have to decide whether they can overcome their visceral disgust with those icky brown people and those with big kippot who live over some imaginary line and have such crazy ideas of what to do with Hamas in favor of getting the charedi community into a productive position. I don't have much hope- conventional wisdom is a powerful drug.
It looks like it. Or at least it looks like the charedim are doing their darnedest to make sure they aren't excluded, and it looks like a lot of people are open to the idea.
At a certain point people have to realize that their priorities are not everyone else's. Drafting charedim and getting to work is a very important value to you, and me, and the people here. To Religious Zionists in general. (Although not to Smotrich and the chardalim.) Do you think Benny Gantz feels the same way? Yair Lapid? I really don't think so. To the extent they talk about the charedi draft, it's demagoguery and a cover for their real plans.
Again, Ben-Gvir at least is in favor of drafting charedim. (Again, bear in mind that Otzma Yehudit is not a religious party.) At some point, you swallow your pride and work with him.
My major in college was political science. I always say that I learned more about politics- real politics, how politics really works- in one weekend at Yale University, when I was part of a "Model Knesset", than I did in four years of classes. You sit in a room and find yourself cutting disgusting deals with a bunch of smarmy Shas people (actually classmates of mine playing the role really well), voting for things you never thought you'd support, and suddenly you get what politics is all about. So, again, take your pick.
Put it this way: They think they can sell the idea of a "unity government" without Smotrich/Ben-Gvir. (Excluding over 10% of the population is a perversion of the word "unity," but we're used to that, as Ben-Gvir isn't in the Overton Window.) But the rest? Run the numbers. Likud, Gantz, Saar, Lieberman don't even have a majority combined. Add Lapid (which is a fantasy; he doesn't want to join at all, and Gantz is iffy too) and you have 74. That gives you a majority, albeit one that can't really do anything, but it's not an amazing number. Add Labor and it becomes clear you want center-left, not unity. Add the Arabs and the charedim will start screaming that they're being left out. So what you're left with is a government with everyone but Arabs and ideological right-wingers.
Just remember that the real reason that Charedim will never serve in the IDF has nothing to do with Torah Magna Umatzla. The real reason is found at www.vayakhel.com
The only solution is for a new army that is ruled by the Charedi Gedolim, and you will see most Charedim join this new army.
Take the effort of posting your ideas here instead of asking us for clicks.
Leaving aside that it is a singularly stupid and un-Torah idea, the charedi "gedolim" have no interest in running an army, and the charedim have no interest in serving in any sort of army, no matter who runs it.
רש"י סנהדרין ז ע"ב ד"ה אצל מזבח - ות"ח מכפרין ומגינין כמזבח, ואינו ברור מקורו של רש"י שהמזבח מגין, ויתכן שמקורו מכתובות דף י ע"ב שהמזבח מזיח גזירות ופירש"י רעות מעל ישראל. ולכאו' זה מקור נאמן לשיטת ה"חרדים" בענין זה ולעורר באתי
in english, rashi says that talmidei chachomim "protect" like the mizbeach, and we find that the mizbeach "protects" yisroel from tragedies. just something to think about...
ועוד שבעל הלשם זצוק"ל היה ת"ח נפלא יותר מכל החכמים של היום, ואשמח מאד מאד לסמוך את עצמי עליו בענין קדושת חז"ל שהיה בקי בענין זה בפרט ע"פ אמיתת הזהר וד' האריז"ל יותר מכולם, ואם עם אנשים כאלה אשתתף, מה טוב ומה נעים, לא אבוש כלל וכלל! ולומר שכולם לא ידעו, הלשם בכללם, לא עלי תלונתכם כי עם על בקיאי בקיאים, דומה להחכם ש"מכיר" ב"חכמתו" שמכניקת הקוונטים הוא טעות. שוטה האומר כן
in english, I'm more than happy to side with the Leshem on this one, just like I wouldn't argue on quantum mechanics until I was on the level of scientific expertise as they are, even if to my layman brain there are obvious questions on it that "prove the opposite."
I don't disagree that we need an army. I'm just contesting rabbi doctor's statement that the chareidim made up that torah also protects. I haven't really heard a good response yet except that rashi was chareidi or something
We are not obligated to accept non-halachic statements made by rabbis. The commandment "ככל אשר יורוך" does not extend to their personal beliefs, limited scientific knowledge, or primitive medical remedies.
True, but that doesn't mean that they were necessarily wrong on the pnimius level. Which is what the mekubalim are claiming. And take it or leave it, it's at least a valid approach in Jewish theology.
I'm not sure if "pnimius" and all of Jewish mysticism were truly given by God at Mount Sinai, or if they are purely gradual human creations, similar to philosophy.
No, it's not. This is exactly the point that I demonstrated in the previous post.
I wish you would acknowledge the givens that drive the differences. You obviously cannot disagree with Christians about what does or does not count as “good works,” for example because you disagree with their whole religion. You’d have to say “If I were to accept your given, I would argue ABC.” L’havdil, there are major givens that distinguish you from charedim that you don’t acknowledge as such. The have a wall up against the modern world. That’s your only gripe with them. Everything else stems from this. They don’t know modern science or industry or academic approaches to knowledge of any type and they believe these corrupt (for a very long time, they were 100% right about that as an historical fact). With that heavily-reinforced wall as a given, of course they are going to approach Torah differently and end up not only with different results but entirely different methodology. I understand it’s not as simple as this but this is what drives their society. None of your arguments mean anything to them because everything about you is driven by modern values that they reject out of hand. You have one simple thing to say to them, and that’s it: Channeling Reagan, you should declare, “Charedim! Tear down that wall!”
Good points.
One might also say that the two worlds have drifted further apart, with the Modern Orthodox world being more influenced by Western values and culture than previously while the haredi world has become even more insular than it was previously. I can see an intellectual argument that the two need each other, as check and balance,although I wonder to what extent there is a practical manifestation.
Regarding the haredi world, it seems to me that what has happened is that they have also withdraen from an interest in applying the Torah to practical life. I give an example not just the paucity of halachic teshuvos now coming out from the Litvishe world, but the hesitation to apply what they're learning to modern day applications.
Even in high school, the rebbes generally make no effort to apply what they are teaching to modern applications, for instance when learning Bava Kamma, even though seforim exist to help them do exactly that.
So what happens is that they are taught very early that the Torah is not something that speaks to practical life. Perhaps this then leads to a situation where as adults they continue to view Torah as something that doesn't translate to actions like supporting their families, fighting in the army, etc.
This is a very salient point. One of the most significant deviations in the community was regarding Torah lishma. Rav Chaim Volozhoner’s emphasis that Torah study was not just a glorified kitzur but that it was a highly intellectual pursuit with it’s own immeasurable worth attracted thousands and changed learning for the entire Ashkenazi world. But as happens (and as R’ Chaim himself described about Chasidim and davening times, as an example), this was taken to an extreme to the point that practical learning was no longer chashuv enough to be taken too seriously. Exacerbating this immensely was a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world that made confident applications more and more elusive and, to put it harshly, too humbling for an enterprise that depended on excitement and confidence to win over the interest of young people. But there are many in the charedi world who are actually very good at this. It just does not characterize their approach overall.
For the record, non-Eastern Europeans never had this problem.
Also, "thousands" is a bit of an exaggeration. Even on the eve of World War II there were only about a thousand people learning in all the Litvish yeshivot combined.
Good point. Another way to express it is "different worldviews."
To be fair, R' Slifkin is well aware of this, which is why his blog is titled "Rationalist Judaism" and his book is called "Rationalism vs Mysticism."
But I agree that it should be mentioned explicitly, at least in passing.
Medicine corrupts? Astronomy corrupts? Skills like engineering and architecture corrupt?? This is foolish and self evident that hareidim don’t actually ponder their choices but make them mindlessly.
Excellent comment. I believe another major difference lies in the belief in Divine intervention, or the lack thereof. For example, it's much easier to believe that learning Torah provides protection when one subscribes to the idea of absolute Divine intervention.
And you tend to worry less about long-term economic impacts that your spiritual decisions will have in 20 years.
As an outsider to the vast majority of this discussion, I think that asserting and believing things that are manifestly at odds with physical reality is corrupting in and of itself.
This is an excellent point in theory. In practice, it is irresponsible and I say this based on irrefutable historical evidence. I’ve made this point here recently so I will put it differently and briefly: What if the resolution of physical reality with spiritual teachings is too nuanced for the majority of people to appreciate and doing so will result in mass defections over time from the true path? We teach children things that are manifestly at odds with physical reality, don’t we? The chardedim are unapologetically paternalistic and have long ago adopted a “Noah’s Ark” approach to going through a physical world too corrupted to absorb a higher truth. Those who can appreciate the nuance should try. When I look at the MO world, and I grew up in it and live close to it, I see precious few who live the Torah’s vision successfully.
I do my best not to outright lie about physical reality to my children.
"hat if the resolution of physical reality with spiritual teachings is too nuanced for the majority of people to appreciate and doing so will result in mass defections over time from the true path?"
What sort of deity would design a reality whose study would lead people away from his chosen path? This seems like a bizarre assumption to have undergirding your philosophical system.
Hi, Jerry! I loved your show.
As far as the wisdom of Chazal in medical matters, I would say every time I run across a supposed cure of something in the Gemara, I realize it was all based on accepted wisdom . It was similar to the Greeks, who speculated on the functions of various organs in the human body, but really had no empiric or experimental knowledge of how things actually worked. this is as opposed to Chazal’s halakhic knowledge to which every Jew should totally defer.
To be fair, a lot of their scientific and medical "knowledge" was based on *something*, some sort of observation, however faulty. The problem is that once they had it, they locked it into place and refused to consider anything new.
Even the greatest kabalists don't claim chazal knew about gravity and atoms. The ramchal discusses this in his maamar on agados.
What we defer to them is that everything they did say (or at least what they decided to publish and incorporate as a body into shas as we know it) was kadosh and emes, only it was wrapped in layers, sometimes using science of their time. Personally, I don't know the answer to all the science questions and I think rabbi doctor's approach in his "heretical" book is rather reasonable, but to say that the leshem isn't someone whose opinion counts as well is a different story. Maybe chareidi gedolim thought about things but side with the leshem on some matters. It seems to me that the consensus here is that anyone who concludes by agreeing to a kabalist who agrees to some understanding of certain ancient, antiquated wisdom *must* have never thought through the issues thoroughly and is following certain trends blindly...
"What we defer to them is that..."
Just please keep in mind that when you defer to them on this, you are going against most of the Rishonim and numerous Acharonim.
Meaning all those who didn't have the Zohar? Sure...
No, including plenty of Acharonim who were well aware of the Zohar.
I'm not sure what you're referring to...
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/you-dont-mess-with-zohar-or-do-you
But the point is that someone can come out, after thinking about it, that the Zohar approach is correct and that doesn't mean he never thought about the other side, which is what you sounded like you were insinuating.
So, you admit the Zohar was 13th Century invention/forgery and doesn’t go back to RSBY….
R, Kapach wrote a letter to R. Cook claiming Rashbi couldn't have written down the Zohar. R. Cook sAid if it wasn't RAshbi it was someone like him ?!
Someone like him who knew ladino and lived in the 13th century ?
Not sure how you concluded that. Do you know the other side of the argument? No one thinks the Zohar had a publicly unbroken chain since Sinai...
If so many of the baalei mesorah didn't have the Zohar, that says something about the Zohar too. It says either that the Zohar is a late innovation, or that the older holders of the mesorah didn't think the Zohar was worth teaching and transmitting.
Maybe. Or that the material was only ever meant for yechidei segula...
All those rishonim weren't yechidei segulah? But some random guy today who learns Zohar is one of the yechidei segulah?
You are stretching here. If it isn't what it purports to be and the provenance it rests on is a forgery what brilliant arguments within it or what truths it reveals make it authoritative?
I heard a great story when I was in medical school from a non-religious orthopedic doctor. He said one of his patients went to Lubavitcher Rebbe about his condition . The Rebbe said let me see the x-rays. The patient got the rebbe a copy of the x-rays and Rebbe said go ahead with the surgery. The patient asked, “does the Rebbe know how to read x-rays?“ The Rebbe said, “no, but I saw the name of the ordering doctor is Dr. Levin and he is a trustworthy doctor.“
One of the difficulties is that science, the branch of natural philosophy which has vastly accelerated our understanding of physical things, is not very old. People absolutely did systematic investigation of the world before then. But the methods and philosophical underpinnings really got their start between 1500-1700CE. The intellectual world of Late Antiquity was very different, and reconciling the two is a minefield.
"People absolutely did systematic investigation of the world before then". Yes, some people did empirical research, such as Aristotle (see his Biology), but it was rare.
"The intellectual world of Late Antiquity was very different, and reconciling the two is a minefield." Unclear what you mean here. Who's trying to reconcile them? Huge percentage of ancient ancient science was wrong, and has been superseded
He did not. If Aristotle had done systematic investigation he would have known that men and women have the same number of teeth…
That's not a disproof. He certainly did empirical research for his book Biology. He also relied on other authorities, as all scientists do today. And those other authorities could have been, and were, wrong
Mmmm, so he said. But he tended to make broad pronouncements about all sorts of things based on "everyone knows".
Nope. Aristotle didn't do anything of the sort. But others from Archimedes to the alchemists - the chemical engineering branch of the field - to the many Chinese scientists of whom I am sadly ignorant did such things.
What I meant by hard to reconcile wasn't that the ancients' scientific knowledge was hard to reconcile with ours. Rather the philosophical foundations of their thought including questions of how to think about the physical world were very different than ours. The differences can trip you up in unexpected ways. Stephen J. Gould ztl did a couple marvelous columns on how interpretation of the first few verses of the first book of Tanakh changed over two thousand years as a result. Well worth searching them out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_biology > "Empirical research":
"Aristotle was the first person to study biology systematically. He spent two years observing and describing the zoology of Lesbos and the surrounding seas, including in particular the Pyrrha lagoon in the centre of Lesbos. His data are assembled from his own observations, statements given by people with specialised knowledge such as beekeepers and fishermen, and less accurate accounts provided by travellers from overseas."
"What we defer to them is that everything they did say (or at least what they decided to publish and incorporate as a body into shas as we know it) was kadosh and emes, only it was wrapped in layers, sometimes using science of their time."
What does this mean? That they spoke on a level of סוד but occulted the true meaning in the language of the exoteric? Is that an implicit concession that the medical advice provided by חז"ל carries no scientific/medical weight?
Yet, how often do we this concession? Do we have a wholesale re-interpretation (or an assertion that such a re-interpretation must have existed) of Chazal's statements of science in the non-פשט fashion? Do they say that the "Slifkin School" of scholars are actually right in their rejection of פשט level interpretation of such matters?
And is such a approach found in traditional sources? Or is it a modern approach?
Ramchal makes this concession pretty openly and most chareidim I know don't find it too shocking that chazal didn't know Einstein's theory of relativity. It's complex - for example, the medicines seemed to have actually worked at the time. but matters of how they understood the relationship between the Earth and the sun seems to have a deeper layer of meaning beyond the science according to the mekubalim. Not that I understand this stuff but the gra talks about it, as do others in that camp. Idk where to say what but they seem to have a working approach.
"the medicines seemed to have actually worked at the time"
I am pretty skeptical.
Well, they were there and said it worked. I don't know how but I'd have to trust those who were there over someone today who is just not sure...
Here is one of those pitfalls. Modern science by it's very nature changes. Sometimes those changes are in error or dead ends, but there is s mechanism for self correction however imperfect. Everything is conditional and subject to revision as our understanding improves.
When my father entered medical school the Dean told the incoming class "By the time you retire a third of what we teach you will be obsolete. Unfortunately we don't know which third." From a perspective which is based on authority and a descent from earlier perfection this would seem awful. From the perspective of philosophy of science it is a great strength.
There are methods of correction in this system as well. Just like the data has to fit the facts of the world in science, the data has to fit with the torah. We have a system of acharei rabim and the like. Unless you want to start arguing atheism in general
For the sake of completion, you should include those slogans that are abused and distorted by non-Charedim, such as כבוד הבריות and תיקון עולם.
The very words of such phrases are evocative. And the evocation tends to implying a meaning beyond the correct definition and usage. They become catchphrases that take on a life of their own, appropriated from a narrow application and assimilated into the general lexicon. There's nothing wrong with this phenomenon- that's one way language develops. The problem is when one conflates the evolved meaning with the original and declares such usage as an authentic tradition.
Well, כבוד הבריאות means gay marriage and female aliyot. תיקון עולם means just about everything else on the Left's agenda.
For those not paying attention, the charedi parties, UTJ and Shas, are currently engaged in a full-court press to convince the Israeli Left that they are on their side, telling the so-called "Hostage Families" that they are all in favor of a deal, a ceasefire, "pidyon shvuyim", a "unity government" (which, as used by everybody, means simply excluding those icky right-wing religious types and surrendering), blah blah blah.
The Left, of course, is eating it up. They hate Bibi and Ben-Gvir far more than they hate charedim, and are willing to give the charedim everything they want, the future of the country be d***ed, to get at those they hate.
(Before anyone starts, yes, that's true of Bibi as well.)
At a certain point the "datim normalim", the rationalists, the soi-disant "good" right-wingers, are going to have to decide whether they can overcome their visceral disgust with those icky brown people and those with big kippot who live over some imaginary line and have such crazy ideas of what to do with Hamas in favor of getting the charedi community into a productive position. I don't have much hope- conventional wisdom is a powerful drug.
"Unity government" means including charedim?
It looks like it. Or at least it looks like the charedim are doing their darnedest to make sure they aren't excluded, and it looks like a lot of people are open to the idea.
At a certain point people have to realize that their priorities are not everyone else's. Drafting charedim and getting to work is a very important value to you, and me, and the people here. To Religious Zionists in general. (Although not to Smotrich and the chardalim.) Do you think Benny Gantz feels the same way? Yair Lapid? I really don't think so. To the extent they talk about the charedi draft, it's demagoguery and a cover for their real plans.
Again, Ben-Gvir at least is in favor of drafting charedim. (Again, bear in mind that Otzma Yehudit is not a religious party.) At some point, you swallow your pride and work with him.
My major in college was political science. I always say that I learned more about politics- real politics, how politics really works- in one weekend at Yale University, when I was part of a "Model Knesset", than I did in four years of classes. You sit in a room and find yourself cutting disgusting deals with a bunch of smarmy Shas people (actually classmates of mine playing the role really well), voting for things you never thought you'd support, and suddenly you get what politics is all about. So, again, take your pick.
Put it this way: They think they can sell the idea of a "unity government" without Smotrich/Ben-Gvir. (Excluding over 10% of the population is a perversion of the word "unity," but we're used to that, as Ben-Gvir isn't in the Overton Window.) But the rest? Run the numbers. Likud, Gantz, Saar, Lieberman don't even have a majority combined. Add Lapid (which is a fantasy; he doesn't want to join at all, and Gantz is iffy too) and you have 74. That gives you a majority, albeit one that can't really do anything, but it's not an amazing number. Add Labor and it becomes clear you want center-left, not unity. Add the Arabs and the charedim will start screaming that they're being left out. So what you're left with is a government with everyone but Arabs and ideological right-wingers.
I'll tell you what I want: Chief Rabbis Meir Kahane and Shmuel Eliyahu more than Son-and-brother-of-Lau and Son-and-brother-of-Yosef.
Just remember that the real reason that Charedim will never serve in the IDF has nothing to do with Torah Magna Umatzla. The real reason is found at www.vayakhel.com
The only solution is for a new army that is ruled by the Charedi Gedolim, and you will see most Charedim join this new army.
Take the effort of posting your ideas here instead of asking us for clicks.
Leaving aside that it is a singularly stupid and un-Torah idea, the charedi "gedolim" have no interest in running an army, and the charedim have no interest in serving in any sort of army, no matter who runs it.
רש"י סנהדרין ז ע"ב ד"ה אצל מזבח - ות"ח מכפרין ומגינין כמזבח, ואינו ברור מקורו של רש"י שהמזבח מגין, ויתכן שמקורו מכתובות דף י ע"ב שהמזבח מזיח גזירות ופירש"י רעות מעל ישראל. ולכאו' זה מקור נאמן לשיטת ה"חרדים" בענין זה ולעורר באתי
in english, rashi says that talmidei chachomim "protect" like the mizbeach, and we find that the mizbeach "protects" yisroel from tragedies. just something to think about...
ועוד שבעל הלשם זצוק"ל היה ת"ח נפלא יותר מכל החכמים של היום, ואשמח מאד מאד לסמוך את עצמי עליו בענין קדושת חז"ל שהיה בקי בענין זה בפרט ע"פ אמיתת הזהר וד' האריז"ל יותר מכולם, ואם עם אנשים כאלה אשתתף, מה טוב ומה נעים, לא אבוש כלל וכלל! ולומר שכולם לא ידעו, הלשם בכללם, לא עלי תלונתכם כי עם על בקיאי בקיאים, דומה להחכם ש"מכיר" ב"חכמתו" שמכניקת הקוונטים הוא טעות. שוטה האומר כן
in english, I'm more than happy to side with the Leshem on this one, just like I wouldn't argue on quantum mechanics until I was on the level of scientific expertise as they are, even if to my layman brain there are obvious questions on it that "prove the opposite."
And yet, when the mizbeach existed, they still raised armies to fight wars, rather than "relying" on the mizbeach. Just something to think about...
I don't disagree that we need an army. I'm just contesting rabbi doctor's statement that the chareidim made up that torah also protects. I haven't really heard a good response yet except that rashi was chareidi or something
The charedim made up the idea that Torah protects in place of army service.
Where have you seen that???
Much the same way Slifkin made up the army protects instead of Torah..
TRUE
Last time I checked the mizbeach didn’t protect from a churban numerous times. Shiloh, temple 1 temple 2….
Rashi was a forerunner of modern Haredi rabbis, who embraced every midrash and Talmudic saying.
That is false. Rashi explicitly says that his commentary is a mixture of some pshat and midrash, in many cases choosing pshat over midrash.
https://jewishbelief.com/did-rashi-come-down-with-moses-at-sinai/
K and again, we're entitled to follow that approach, no?
Nope. You wouldn't follow Chazal's medical remedies - you'd say "we don't know what that means, the parameters of when it applies, etc."
That has nothing to do with following the general approach
We are not obligated to accept non-halachic statements made by rabbis. The commandment "ככל אשר יורוך" does not extend to their personal beliefs, limited scientific knowledge, or primitive medical remedies.
It applies to the Sanhedrin.Rambam ,a minority opinion says it applies to rabonim when they all get together and decide.
.
True, but that doesn't mean that they were necessarily wrong on the pnimius level. Which is what the mekubalim are claiming. And take it or leave it, it's at least a valid approach in Jewish theology.
@ Jerry,
What exactly is the “pnimius level”? And what is their Jewish Theology approach?
I'm not sure if "pnimius" and all of Jewish mysticism were truly given by God at Mount Sinai, or if they are purely gradual human creations, similar to philosophy.
Again, says you. The mekubalim say not like that