A phenomena I've notice in some of these articles, and in some of the comments posted on your blog, is not only to some Haredim subscribe to a worldview based on "Daas Torah" which absolves them of answering a question for themselves, but they have gone one step further and attribute their own opinion to a Gadol of a former generation, thus transferring their own opinion into "Daas Torah".
For example, they will say something like "If Rabbi so-and-so was alive today, I am sure that he would agree with me about xyz, and therefore my opinion is now 'Daas Torah' and no one has the right to criticize it."
Yesterday one of the commentators on this blog responded to a comment that I made by imagining a conversation between me and Rav Kamenetsky, and surprisingly Rav Kamenetsky in this imaginary conversation agreed with the commentator, and disagreed with me.
Instead of saying "I think you are wrong because of xyz", it is easier to say "I am sure that Daas Torah would say that you are wrong because of xyz, and therefore you cannot respond because I just evoked that magic of Daas Torah".
I assume you are referring to my comment to you on a different article. Thanks for the shout-out. I responded to your response there. I believe you, Rabbi Slifkin, and the other commenters here don't quite understand the concept of Daas Torah as referred to by chareidim. In the context of that comment, the Wise Sage of Chelm quoted a statement of Rav Kamenetzky to illustrate a point concerning that article. You said something which implied that Rav Kamenetzky is only concerned with the welfare of his community. I responded with an imaginary story to further elucidate the hashkafa expressed by the statement of Rav Kamenetzky. I hoped that clears things up.
"I think you are wrong because of xyz", it is easier to say "I am sure that Daas Torah would say that you are wrong because of xyz, and therefore you cannot respond because I just evoked that magic of Daas Torah".
That is true, but irrelevant. The exchange wasn't about who should make decisions. If he had asked R Aryeh Zev Ginzberg and reported back to you, it's not as though anything would be different.
It doesn't matter what the Gadol would have said, or which Gadol -
Members of the Haredi community can assume that they already know what every Gadol thinks, and therefore no reason to ask them anything as they can say "If he has asked R xyz, the answer would have been exactly as we expected"
No. They can't do that. Only if the premise of the challenge rests on the same or similar point the gadol was addressing. (if everyone would listen to you, who would do XYZ?') It's ironic that you're essentially attacking charedim for actually making a comparison on their own. Wasn't the whole stereotype about charedim that they're incapable of thinking for themselves?
Exactly. The concept of Daas Torah doesn't mean that people can't elucidate and expound on the principles taught by Gedolim. All of Gemara study is based on the Daas Torah of Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Shimon, Abbaye, Rava, etc. This is the concept of having a mesorah.
This is to be expected when everything is based on a vague belief system without any clear, rational objective rules behind it. We use the term "Daas Torah" on things that our parents and grandparents never used, we ask Sheilas on mundane things that we never did before, while minimizing our own sense of making decisions thoughtfully. It's all a vague belief.
It's only a natural progression then not to actually ask rabbonim, but to fall into that projected vague belief about it all. It's a vanity project, it's about what makes us feel good.
I like the use of the word incoherent rather than irrational.
It is striking to me that the present day great scholars to whom Rav Ginzburg assigns astonishing wisdom have so far not produced a coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly argument explaining their position.
Isn't this what one would expect from a serious scholar in any other discipline?
Do scholars of other disciplines argue their positions solely from authority and forbid anyone else from expecting from them coherent argumentation?
Have you read any other 'coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly arguments' about any other topic?
Let's hear which ones.
Because the idea that the scholars owe the street people an argument that will make sense on their level is ludicrous. Torah isn't something that belongs on blogs and in the street. The argument was made, but not in the places, or to the people, where it doesn't belong.
"Because the idea that the scholars owe the street people an argument that will make sense on their level is ludicrous"
They won't even provide a "coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly argument" to learned talmidei chachomim that hold differently. They just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.
Your goalposts of 'Rabbinic journals' are self made limitations.
Nobody owes you anything here, and certainly not on your terms. The Chafetz Chaim didn't publish his reasoning behind any Klal decision in the journals read by academics.
Why doesn't Torah belong to the "street people"? The Torah is what Am Yisrael lives by so therefore by definition it belongs to Am Yisrael, not only to scholars. And considering this issue affects many thousands of individual charedim, why wouldn't they be owed an explanation?
It belongs to every member of Klal Yisroel. Every member can invest the time, effort, olam hazeh, and brainpower to learn Torah and achieve great understanding and vast knowledge in Torah.
No. Torah is for every jew. Where did you come up with this elitist trash? In פרקי אבות the תנא said תלמידי יותר מכולם. Its on the gedolim to explain their position if they want the ציבור to follow it. Just like its on each person to choose a Rav.
When they have learned it, and are on the level of not making up Mishnayos in Avos, they may be able to understand the answer. Until then, they need to trust those who know better.
Not that different to medicine, law, geology, or astro-physics.
The issue isn't between Rabbis. It is between Rabbis and Slifkins. The Slifkins of the world, who know little about Torah, are not owed an explanation from Talmidei Chachamim. The idea that you can make your own decision about matters that you know nothing about is not ideological. It is the anti-vaxxer attitude that you, and your ilk, constantly display.
You're connecting now with a feeling of US versus them. This is what makes you feel good and righteous. But this isn't what Torah is all about. There actually is a system of thought that we base our decisions on. Your version of faith is just tribalism. Whatever is in your tribe, clicks. Whatever is out does not. But that's not how it really works.
You usually provide good background. Tell me, are you aware of a scholarly-well written article by a noted Halachic authority (DL most likely) who explains why a woman is permitted to serve in the army? Not soundbites or nitpicked sources out of context. I've been looking for a while and haven't found much.
How is it that 'following those who (sic) we find compelling' is ridiculous when it comes to medicine because of our lack of knowledge of medicine, yet when it comes to Torah, which requires greater dedication and intense study, every Yoizel's opinion is supposed to count?
But that's just mentioning a principle. It doesn't produce " a coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly argument explaining their position." For example, it doesn't explain why Charedi parties insist that Hesder and Mechina Yeshiva students abandon Torah study to enlist in the army.
"For example, it doesn't explain why Charedi parties insist that Hesder and Mechina Yeshiva students abandon Torah study to enlist in the army."
They don't 'insist that 'Hesder and Mechina Yeshiva students abandon Torah study to enlist in the army.' You've been misinformed. There are no attempts by charedim to coerce hesder or mechina kids to stop learning.
We're at the point where you're expecting a reasoned explanation of non existent charedi beliefs as theatrically determined by a guy who's spent the last decade mocking them.
"UTJ insisted that non-Charedi students stop their learning and enlist."
Like I said, you've been misinformed. Porush read a reply on behalf of Gallant about what the security establishment concluded. It wasn't UTJ doing anything. It wasn't their decision to draft anyone.
"Meir Porush responded in the Knesset plenum on behalf of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the government, as to why it is necessary to draft pre-military academy students early."
"The government’s decision to draft national religious yeshiva ... was defended in the Knesset by Jerusalem Affairs Minister Meir Porush, of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party."
מאיר פרוש, הציג מטעם מערכת הביטחון והעומד בראשה את ההחלטה להקדים את גיוסם של 1,300 מתנדבי שנת שירות, תלמידי מכינות קדם צבאיות, ישיבות הסדר וישיבות ציוניות.
But does that really answer the question? I am in complete agreement with you on the critical importance of learning Torah. But we stop all the time to daven, for kiddush, to do chesed, to prepare for Pesach, and even (sometimes) to help our wives. So when a terrible enemy appears to kill us, our families, and our fellow Jews, and we have an obligation to defend, why is it any different? (And, I will add, I think we are only talking about a relatively small age segment of the fighting age male population of the Charedi community.)
That is a kind of conversation worth having. I think anyone here agrees that the Chareidi situation is not ideal. The question is what's the alternative? Do you actually have a conherent way to keep the Charedi mission alive asking with some kind of compromise? And remember, this is all while we are dealing with an opponent who will take an arm if we give them a finger so things are not so simple.
Correct, and in light of what incoherent charedism avows, what is the purpose of responding to them in scholarly terms except for us coherent folks to preempt chareidi fury and wave both hands and declare:
That has nothing to do with this conversation. The question we are discussing is within the context of Judaism and its accepted tenets, within that we are being asked here to be more clear. You are referring to your uneducated view that all of religion, from beginning to end, is nonsense.
They haven't answered the points and arguments of those Rabbanim who state it is obligatory to join Tzhal. You refuse to see what is in front of you!? Superfluous statements are not serious detailed halachik argument.
But what if one side ignores an entire section of scholarly literature? Must we engage with their ignorance? Is it not enough to highlight said literature? With such highlights much of the discussion falls away easily.
They have in fact produced many coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly arguments explaining their position. But you cannot expect them to comment on blogs, or engage in protracted back-and-forths with every rasha and kofer.
Would you be so kind as to point to examples? Doesn't have to be online. In what volume of which Rabbinic journal or in which sefer has Rav Landau, for instance, presented his arguments in support of his statements widely-disseminated to haredi media and on pashkevilim?
I take it that you might not be familiar with how professional scholars in non-Torah disciplines present arguments within their own disciplines, but I take it that you are familiar with shaila and teshuva literature and with articles published in Rabbinnic journals.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't one see a presentation of many sides of an argument, followed by the author showing why a particular argument is superior to the others he brought?
Do you think the document you linked to is consistent with that scholarly standard, even within the world of classical rabbinnics?
Did you read the letter? He directly addresses the main argument for universal military service, which is שויון בנטל. Just because he doesn't use academic jargon, or quote many academic sources with footnotes, which might be more to your taste, doesn't mean he is failing to address the issue.
These letters are written on a popular level. They declare rather than expound. The reason why they fail to impress is not due to lack of academic sources, but because of the lack of Torah sources. He mentions concepts like "Torah protects" and שבט לוי, but fails to delve into those concepts. He neglects to define them, or to cite sources which delineate the boundaries of their application. Instead he opts for an all-embracing impressionistic application which goes beyond what the sources imply.
A rather crude analogy would be the term תיקון עולם which has very narrow application in הלכה, and perhaps also a distinct application in mysticism. But the reformers ignore the classic halachic limits, and instead opt for all-embracing impressionistic doctrine which not only is not warranted by classic halachic sources, but violates them.
Another analogy would be the שלא יעלה בחומה which the Satmars apply an all-embracing impressionistic prohibition but ignore the classic sources which put clear limits on the prohibition.
He's quoting a slogan. He doesn't bring the rabbinnic arguments that support that position.
BTW, in terms of what I am familiar with, if you want to make this personal, I am not an academic scholar, but someone with an extremely haredi semicha who davens in a shul that is haredi in the extreme,and who is more familiar with rabbinnic journals and shu"t than he is with academic journals, although I read both.
I served in miluim this year for 107 days. I lost several close friends and my wife became seriously ill.
Before recent events, I naively believed that chareidim would slowly understand that they must serve and work and that trends were in the right direction. I came across your blog quite by accident but found it interesting, I naively imagined that the comments from chareidim to your posts were reflective of extremists only.
Following their abhorrent response to events, point blank refusing to share the burden of service, and my own attempt to better understand their society (for want of a better word) by reading what they think in their words, I understand that words are useless. They have a deep inferiority complex and hatred for the outside world and no attempt at reason will help. At the same time, their society is both deceptively strong, but incredibly brittle, held together by billions of dollars in direct and indirect funding and enforced ignorance.
When this war finishes, we will topple our anti-Zionist government and replace it with parties committed to the state of Israel.
Change will come by force or not at all. There will be no useless dialogue with hateful man-children.
We will cut off all their funding.
We will do everything possible that their children are no longer held in enforced ignorance.
We will pass laws obligating all to serve or lose any and all benefits. Hopefully, those who don't serve can be denied the right to vote as well.
Within a decade, Charedi society will change radically. Their official parties and old demented leaders will continue to rail against change but the best antidote to their ingrained fear and hatred will be 1) removal of poverty when they are no longer dependent on their cult leaders for money and begin to be affluent by their own industrious nature 2) contact with regular Israelis in the army and workplace, breaking down barriers of hatred 3) removal of ignorance of science and history, allowing them to think from their own perspective and not one of enforced ignorance
The biggest mistake will be to engage in any attempt at compromise. We've had 70 years to try that. It hasn't worked. Israelis are beginning to understand that it takes two sides to compromise and when one side is totally unwilling to change, the other side has to adopt the same attitude.
The haredim can change or not, but the public that has been subsidizing their lifestyle is past fed up with subsidizing and underwriting their society. Just throwing more money at an increasingly large pool of recipients is an unworkable budgetary and management model. On top of that, the lack of anything resembling responsibility for the larger Jewish society, even a lack of or basic gratitude towards their donors, isn't winning them any friends.
I wish there were more people like you on this blog then these guys like Zundel, who cannot think straight nor rational . They are in a world of darkness.
Anyway, you are totally right - it will only change by force. These free loaders will never give up their free lifestyles. These entire arguments with them is just a waste of precious time. I wait for the day that the rest of society takes up force, whichever way that plays out. I do hope it is sooner then later.
Your 'we will's sound like the original Zionist argument - we will build a state where we can live in dignity among the nations, safe from persecution and hate.
Maybe one day 'you will'. So far you have failed in your first undertaking, and you are unlikely to see much success in your second.
The 'original zionist argument' has brought results infinitely superior to anything that the charedi mutation of judaism has created. The Jewish people today have their own state, and not just any state but one of the most affluent, advanced and happy in the world. Chareidi society has created a shadow world of poverty, misery and hatred. They are not content with making their own lives miserable but are doing their best to destroy the state of Israel as well and the frightening thing is that they may succeed.
"But more than fifty years and two generations have since passed. What was destroyed in the Holocaust has been rebuilt a hundred times over. There are vastly more people in full-time learning than at any point in recent history. And charedim are a rapidly growing huge sector of the population. And the military requirements of the country are growing. And so presumably, it’s now time to rescind the temporary measure of mass kollel?"
Maybe, maybe not. 50 years ago the Israeli army was a rag-tag bunch. And they faced military threats from numerous countries which were many times stronger than they were.
I think the people who are best suited to apply the chazon ish to our circumstances are people who actually follow in his footsteps. That would be people from bnei brak a whole lot more than people from Ranana.
Now, I understand that you currently identify with a group which rejects that approach. Which is your prerogative. But if you're going to cite to R Zevin as evidence, https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rav-zevin-is-this-daas-torah you should stop pretending that you have any handle on what the chazon ish would say. (To be clear, I have enormous respect for R Zevin. But he represents an approach which was obviously rejected by the chazon ish and brisker rav. That doesn't make him wrong. But *you* ought to be honest and just say that you oppose the chazon ish's approach. Your issue isn't really with mishpacha magazine or R Ginzberg.)
"Rabbi Ginzberg fumes against these voices in the charedi world that call for change. He does not provide any reasons as to why they are actually wrong. Instead, he rages against them for having the chutzpah to disagree with the Daas Torah of the Gedolim."
1) 'Fumes' and 'rages' is your own projection.
2) You are correct that he doesn't offer any reasons. He says so himself: "However, my focus here is not on this nearly century-old source of division and discord in our small country that is being battered from every corner of the earth; nor will I explore the politics or halachic background of the issue.
I am limiting my discussion to the painful phenomenon of people who have always identified themselves with the Torah tzibbur — in varying capacities — who have decided to force their way into this debate and voice their “daas Torah.”"
Step 1) RAG writes about X. He himself notes that he isn't writing about Y. Step 2) You point out that he didn't debunk Y. Step 3) You open the comments section to all manner of people to weigh in on just how bankrupt the chareidi world is. Step 4) Charedi trolls show up and hit back. Step 5) You write some woe-is-me post complaining about nasty the trolls are and ask whether they should be banned.
Charedim learn so much Torah, and yet they are uncapable of deciding any Torah issue for themselves. They must blindly accept what the Gdolei Hador decide, whether it makes sense or not. The Gdolei Hador themselves can't decide anything either! Due to Yeridas HaDoros, there is no way to cancel the Chazon Ish's temporary decision, even though the circumstances are clearly not relevant anymore.
I think there's an illuminating parallel with the Christian world in the 16th century: greater literacy and availability of books led to the reformation, which gave greater primacy to the pshat, so to speak (so analogous to modern orthodox/rationalist Judaism). While the Catholics doubled down on the infallibility of the pope, when he proclaimed anything ex cathedra (ie in his official capacity)
I don’t think that is a fair representation of catholic doctrine. It Protestantism is much closer to Reform Judaism, where everyone reads what they want into scripture, and Catholicism is much closer an Orthodox strain where sources and doctrine hold more sway.
As I have written to Rav Natan recently I found his comments to be worthy.. However, in view of his approach, I think the term 'rationalist Judaism' does not give justice to his approach and wrongly concedes too much to misguided forms of Haredi outlooks - and therefore it would be important to rename this approach as essentially normative Jewish thought. I haven't a suggestion al regel ahas, but I feel the existing name is inappropriate.
It's a reference to the rationalist, mostly atheistic community, which for some reason he is trying to blend with Judaism. I hope he writes a post about it soon.
When he talks about contemporary rationalists approaches, he is referring to people who continue to espouse this medieval approach in a Jewish context. Not the rationatlists associated with EA. The word has many meanings.
Sure it does. Rambam was the foremost medieval rationalist of Sepharad. “(This primarily refers the medieval rationalists of Sefarad, in contrast to the non-rationalist approach that subsequently emerged.)”
I read both this blog and some of the ones I think you might be referring to: zvi, Scott Alexander, marginal revolution, etc.
Honestly, you have no idea what you are talking about. The assumptions embedded in the secular rationalist crowd couldn’t be more different than what Rabbi slifkin reasons from. The subject matters discussed overlap only randomly. Your assertion is bizarre.
You mention there is a secular rationalist crowd. You'd consider this the Jewish rationalist crowd? It's not bizarre for someone ignorant like me to try to compare them to each other.
The difference between the "secular rationalist crowd" and the "Jewish rationalist crowd" is exactly that - one is secular and one is Jewish. The difference is literally in the name, why pretend it doesn't exist?
Those whose religion is a collection of "beliefs" and not logical thinking belong to the same group as the Christian, Muslim, and other religions. Because if there is no logic, then what is the difference?
I don't know why you falsify things. As I have made very clear in the past, that is absolutely not the meaning of the word that I am using. I suspect you know this.
I actually don't. Until reading your blog, which I only started doing recently, I'd only read about you.
While i have your attention, my husband ordered locusts and a book from your website. The locusts came but not the book. He wants to know why it's shipped separately. That said, if you were going to only send one, the locusts were more important. But he wants the book.
"my husband ordered locusts and a book from your website. The locusts came but not the book. He wants to know why it's shipped separately. That said, if you were going to only send one, the locusts were more important. But he wants the book."
It would be helpful if you would instruct commentators to indicate to whom they’re responding. In this format it’s difficult to follow the thread of the conversation.
To whom are you addressing : “I don't know why you falsify things.” Where does the discussion begin?
Also, I don't appreciate being accused of falsifying things. Your blog is called rationalist Judaism, and if you Google rationalist, it doesn't mean "based on Maimonides and rational rabbinical sources". It is very reasonable for me to ask this. I am sure I'm not the only person who doesn't have years of background knowledge about you.
Thanks for treatment. All thinkers before the expulsion from Spain were rationalists. This includes Rabbi Yehuda Halevi who combined empiricism with rationalism. After that, there is rationalist writing in Orthodox Judaism to this day. See the list up to and including Franz Rosenzweig, in the book Julius Gutman, The Philosophy of Judaism, New York: Shoken second print 1976
That is why Rabbi Slifkin and others use their brains (as the Rambam recommended) and do not follow that statement of the Rambam. In Rationalist Judaism, no one is infallible. That statement of Rambam is still followed by the (non-chabad) chassidim who generally don't allow women to drive or have any independent religious role and also increasingly (unfortunately) by the Litvish. Ironically, Chabad, which claims to follow Rambam, do give women a prominent role in the Chassidus.
Your comment regarding Rambam is 100% correct and is true not only for him but for every thinker who held to logical methods that have been passed over, such as Aristotelianism, Platonism and Neoplatonism. So why are they rationalists after all? Because these were the rules of logic in their time. And the rules of logic change mainly according to empirical findings but also following the accumulation of dead ends according to one or another structure of logical rules.
He's referring to a medieval Jewish rationalism before empiricism existed. The blog has nothing to do with the rationalism you are referring to and the blog far predates the popularization of the EA movement.
He has to constantly come up with new ideas for posts, and you can tell they are strained lately. I think it's reasonable to ask what modern rationalist thought he does or does not embrace, based on his about section.
Your arguments are solid but they negate the gedolim so you're wrong. End of story... You cannot have an argument when that's the approach of most charedim. Given that this is a fact, the only solution is to provide incentives to people who serve and stop giving incentives to people who do not contribute to the greater society (govt should stop paying for daycare for non working men, should stop providing reductions on arnona, should stop paying out to schooling systems who are detrimental to the growth of our country). This however will not happen as both the right, and center (Gantz and co.) will never do that. Bottom line, I think the bigger criminals are the politicians. They know the score but aren't doing anything about it. Charedim are bigeder tinok shenishba.
To be a bit more precise, those politicians who might be willing to do something on the issue (i.e., the non-charedi ones not named "Bibi") refuse to get together with others to solve this major problem out of narrow political interest, short-sightedness, and personal animus.
If the Attorney General would say, "You know, the charges we have against Bibi are kind of small potatoes. We'll drop them," and then Lieberman, Gantz, and Lapid would say, "We need to deal with these issues immediately, let's get together for that purpose, and just give up on our pet issues about Arabs and gays for a bit", then who knows what could happen. I have zero confidence in Bibi, but that's why he needs the push as well.
Netanyahu is not willing to do anything on this issue because he needs the Charedim to stay in power. So therefore it is everyone else's fault. This doesn't make any sense.
He wouldn't need the charedim to stay in power if Lieberman and Lapid weren't such jerks in refusing to sit with him. It's happened in the past.
Of course, Bibi *prefers* the charedim because they have no principles and can be paid off to do anything. But that doesn't mean that his opposition isn't to blame as well.
Who was it that blew up the last rightist coalition because he couldn’t stand to abide by his agreement to allow his partner to rotate in as PM? When you answer that question you will understand why Gantz and Saar refuse to sit with him (Gantz only joining for the emergency).
I imagine your hatred of Bibi is such that you can't take "yes" for an answer. I am no apologist for Bibi and have never voted for him (nor for any member of his current coalition), nor have any plans to (although like a certain other world leader, his enemies make it easier to support him); as I made it clear above, I hold him partially responsible for this mess.
But if we're going to talk about blowing up coalitions, let's see: Sharon had a right-wing coalition with no charedim. He blew it up to pull out of Gaza. Either he did it all on his megalomaniac lonesome, or the man who faced down Arab armies couldn't face down Condi Rice, or both, but he did it, and his coalition fell apart, not that they'd done anything about the charedi issue anyway, despite Tommy Lapid himself being a major partner there.
Here's another coalition: Bibi had a coalition with no charedim. Yair Lapid (a lightweight not to be confused in any way with his father) blew it up because he couldn't stop pushing for his insane fantasies of a Palestinian state. Playing to his base? American conniving? Don't ask me. But it wasn't Bibi.
And then after Bibi and Sara blew up another one, comes Bennett and Lapid, *also* with no charedim, and *also* taking not one step to solve that issue, and *again* Lapid can't shut up about his precious Palestinian state. Boom goes the coalition.
Gantz and Eizenkot are in enough American pockets that we know where they stand on the issue; they're just keeping their mouths shut, wisely.
It's just amazing. I provide endless analyses, whereas your polemicists just have slogans. And as for fairness and mutual responsibility, you can't even think of a Torah source!
There is a fine balance between emuna and yediah, trust and intimate knowledge, and until one learns the skill of the trade, he actually *is* better of trusting those who know better. People beginning the most menial jobs understand the importance of learning the skills before becoming an expert, but when it comes to live itself, everyone is a born chochom. They learn gemara for three years and already know enough to argue on the greatest Jewish minds.
The reason why those who learn for so many more years actually trust the gedolim more is because they understand what a gadol knows and they appreciate their own limitations. Those who already know everything have no concept of what they're missing.
That being said, I wholly agree that the concept of daas Torah had been hijacked and grossly misused.
The concept of "Daas Torah" is the new Avodah Zara of today. Worship it all costs. That's the message du-jour.
As Mishpacha keeps printing this drivel, they are digging the entire Charedi camp into a hole that they will never dig themselves out. Ultimately Emes/truth and the godly gift of Eretz Yisrael will prevail.
Couldn’t agree more, the biggest irony of “daas torah”, is the exact concept of following blindly was the misnagdims apposition to chasidus.
However now that in Israel and now lakewood religion is directly aligned with politics and not God, “Daas Torah” has been used to gaslight into submission.
I grew up in the shadow of families that did the same thing in the 1940's - listened blindly to "Gedolim" who knew nothing about War, Hitler nor politics. Any chance of escape of these families was burned out by these Gidolim.
Today we make the exact same mistakes Can't we learn our lesson for once, we paid with so many precious lives to go along with this stupidity.
As far as I can see, Zionism is the Avoda Zara of the day. People are proud that their children can die on its altar. Boggles my mind, but that sounds like the Molech of nowadays.
People are proud to have a state that can and does accept Jewish refugees from anywhere. Millions of Jews have escaped persecution in eastern Europe, the Arab countries, Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union, France, and elsewhere due to the existence of Israel. Compare to the situation just 10 years before Israel's establishment where millions of Jews died because no country would accept them. Losing a few thousand soldiers in war to save millions is a price well worth paying. And since that's the situation, being one of the soldiers who risks their life to ensure the continued existence of this homeland is also something to be proud of. After all it's hard to imagine a bigger mitzvah than risking your life to perform pikuach nefesh for millions of other Jews.
Which one? That Reform Jews are monotheists (rather than atheists) or that Haredim are polytheists (rather than monotheists)? I know idolatry when I see it.
Nathan, you’ve made the error of applying logic and rational debate to those who are fearful and emotional. They claim they have sharpened their minds learning. In reality they have developed an echo chamber as insulated and full of incoherent rage as any online featuring the alt-right or far left, trying to shape a world they sing like to their misguided beliefs
Chazal taught an actual Halacha that sons must teach their sons and trade and that one should not be supported by the community. Medieval rabbis, as an "emergency measure", felt they had the ability to reassess that actual law. But now we're going to say contemporary rabbis don't have the ability to reassess what was always just an "emergency measure" proposed by the Chazon Ish??
I read this article on the first days and found it very disturbing but also illogical. The author essentially concludes that the Chazon Ish's opinion can never be changed until basically mashiach comes because nobody will ever be as great as him. The elevation of any human being to that level of infallibility to me seems utterly un-Jewish. Worse, each subsequent "leader" gets themselves out of making a decision by falling back on "well if the previous 'leader' said he wasn't capable of doing it, then who am I?'" Faux modesty that in reality is just an evasion of responsibility. I put "leader" in quotes because don't call yourself a leader if you don't take decisions. At least the Chazon Ish stood up for what he believed and made the call.
Also, I would have thought that the "ultimate kefirah" would be denying Torah m'Sinai.
A phenomena I've notice in some of these articles, and in some of the comments posted on your blog, is not only to some Haredim subscribe to a worldview based on "Daas Torah" which absolves them of answering a question for themselves, but they have gone one step further and attribute their own opinion to a Gadol of a former generation, thus transferring their own opinion into "Daas Torah".
For example, they will say something like "If Rabbi so-and-so was alive today, I am sure that he would agree with me about xyz, and therefore my opinion is now 'Daas Torah' and no one has the right to criticize it."
Yesterday one of the commentators on this blog responded to a comment that I made by imagining a conversation between me and Rav Kamenetsky, and surprisingly Rav Kamenetsky in this imaginary conversation agreed with the commentator, and disagreed with me.
Instead of saying "I think you are wrong because of xyz", it is easier to say "I am sure that Daas Torah would say that you are wrong because of xyz, and therefore you cannot respond because I just evoked that magic of Daas Torah".
we live in very interesting times
I assume you are referring to my comment to you on a different article. Thanks for the shout-out. I responded to your response there. I believe you, Rabbi Slifkin, and the other commenters here don't quite understand the concept of Daas Torah as referred to by chareidim. In the context of that comment, the Wise Sage of Chelm quoted a statement of Rav Kamenetzky to illustrate a point concerning that article. You said something which implied that Rav Kamenetzky is only concerned with the welfare of his community. I responded with an imaginary story to further elucidate the hashkafa expressed by the statement of Rav Kamenetzky. I hoped that clears things up.
Great point, well-said
"I think you are wrong because of xyz", it is easier to say "I am sure that Daas Torah would say that you are wrong because of xyz, and therefore you cannot respond because I just evoked that magic of Daas Torah".
I assume you're referring to this. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/ask-your-local-charedi-rabbi/comment/54155575 If so, it's worth noting that the post *itself* *explicitly* challenged people to ask charedi rabbanim. It's extremely dishonest to point the comments there without noting the context.
But he didn't ask a haredi rabbi, instead he made up a conversation of what he thought would happen if someone asked a haredi rabbi.
The challenge was to ask a specific question to a Haredi rabbi, not to imagine what a Haredi rabbi should say if asked a question.
That is true, but irrelevant. The exchange wasn't about who should make decisions. If he had asked R Aryeh Zev Ginzberg and reported back to you, it's not as though anything would be different.
I think that you have proven my point.
It doesn't matter what the Gadol would have said, or which Gadol -
Members of the Haredi community can assume that they already know what every Gadol thinks, and therefore no reason to ask them anything as they can say "If he has asked R xyz, the answer would have been exactly as we expected"
No. They can't do that. Only if the premise of the challenge rests on the same or similar point the gadol was addressing. (if everyone would listen to you, who would do XYZ?') It's ironic that you're essentially attacking charedim for actually making a comparison on their own. Wasn't the whole stereotype about charedim that they're incapable of thinking for themselves?
Exactly. The concept of Daas Torah doesn't mean that people can't elucidate and expound on the principles taught by Gedolim. All of Gemara study is based on the Daas Torah of Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Shimon, Abbaye, Rava, etc. This is the concept of having a mesorah.
This is to be expected when everything is based on a vague belief system without any clear, rational objective rules behind it. We use the term "Daas Torah" on things that our parents and grandparents never used, we ask Sheilas on mundane things that we never did before, while minimizing our own sense of making decisions thoughtfully. It's all a vague belief.
It's only a natural progression then not to actually ask rabbonim, but to fall into that projected vague belief about it all. It's a vanity project, it's about what makes us feel good.
I like the use of the word incoherent rather than irrational.
It is striking to me that the present day great scholars to whom Rav Ginzburg assigns astonishing wisdom have so far not produced a coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly argument explaining their position.
Isn't this what one would expect from a serious scholar in any other discipline?
Do scholars of other disciplines argue their positions solely from authority and forbid anyone else from expecting from them coherent argumentation?
Have you read any other 'coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly arguments' about any other topic?
Let's hear which ones.
Because the idea that the scholars owe the street people an argument that will make sense on their level is ludicrous. Torah isn't something that belongs on blogs and in the street. The argument was made, but not in the places, or to the people, where it doesn't belong.
"Because the idea that the scholars owe the street people an argument that will make sense on their level is ludicrous"
They won't even provide a "coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly argument" to learned talmidei chachomim that hold differently. They just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.
Which hand do they wave?
@*****
It’s not their hand that they’re waving, it’s their finger —— the middle one.
Yes, in the standard places where they'd be published, Rabbinnic journals like HaMa'ayan and Techumin, for instance, which I read regularly.
Which Rabbinic journals have published haredi scholarship, that you speak of?
Your goalposts of 'Rabbinic journals' are self made limitations.
Nobody owes you anything here, and certainly not on your terms. The Chafetz Chaim didn't publish his reasoning behind any Klal decision in the journals read by academics.
The journals I mentioned are rabbinnic journals, written for Rabbis, not academic journals written for academics.
I dont think chareidim have such a concept.
they used to.
Why doesn't Torah belong to the "street people"? The Torah is what Am Yisrael lives by so therefore by definition it belongs to Am Yisrael, not only to scholars. And considering this issue affects many thousands of individual charedim, why wouldn't they be owed an explanation?
It belongs to every member of Klal Yisroel. Every member can invest the time, effort, olam hazeh, and brainpower to learn Torah and achieve great understanding and vast knowledge in Torah.
Absolutely.
All of Klal Yisroel can be scholars.
No. Torah is for every jew. Where did you come up with this elitist trash? In פרקי אבות the תנא said תלמידי יותר מכולם. Its on the gedolim to explain their position if they want the ציבור to follow it. Just like its on each person to choose a Rav.
The Torah is indeed for every Jew.
When they have learned it, and are on the level of not making up Mishnayos in Avos, they may be able to understand the answer. Until then, they need to trust those who know better.
Not that different to medicine, law, geology, or astro-physics.
Tell me, Zundel, on what grounds would you argue that charedi rabbis "know this topic better" than non-charedi rabbis?
Obviously it has nothing to do with "knowing Torah." It has to do with ideological approach.
Another straw argument.
The issue isn't between Rabbis. It is between Rabbis and Slifkins. The Slifkins of the world, who know little about Torah, are not owed an explanation from Talmidei Chachamim. The idea that you can make your own decision about matters that you know nothing about is not ideological. It is the anti-vaxxer attitude that you, and your ilk, constantly display.
Aha! "Ilk!" Such a popular word for charedi polemicists!
And there are no "Rabbis" who believe that charedim should serve in the IDF?
You're connecting now with a feeling of US versus them. This is what makes you feel good and righteous. But this isn't what Torah is all about. There actually is a system of thought that we base our decisions on. Your version of faith is just tribalism. Whatever is in your tribe, clicks. Whatever is out does not. But that's not how it really works.
I realized its תענית
Or we can just follow those who we find compelling, especially those who do explain their positions.
You usually provide good background. Tell me, are you aware of a scholarly-well written article by a noted Halachic authority (DL most likely) who explains why a woman is permitted to serve in the army? Not soundbites or nitpicked sources out of context. I've been looking for a while and haven't found much.
How is it that 'following those who (sic) we find compelling' is ridiculous when it comes to medicine because of our lack of knowledge of medicine, yet when it comes to Torah, which requires greater dedication and intense study, every Yoizel's opinion is supposed to count?
They do. They talk about the extreme importance of torah. You just aren't listening. That's on you.
But that's just mentioning a principle. It doesn't produce " a coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly argument explaining their position." For example, it doesn't explain why Charedi parties insist that Hesder and Mechina Yeshiva students abandon Torah study to enlist in the army.
"For example, it doesn't explain why Charedi parties insist that Hesder and Mechina Yeshiva students abandon Torah study to enlist in the army."
They don't 'insist that 'Hesder and Mechina Yeshiva students abandon Torah study to enlist in the army.' You've been misinformed. There are no attempts by charedim to coerce hesder or mechina kids to stop learning.
We're at the point where you're expecting a reasoned explanation of non existent charedi beliefs as theatrically determined by a guy who's spent the last decade mocking them.
"There are no attempts by charedim to coerce hesder or mechina kids to stop learning."
This is no secret. It's been well covered here and in the news. UTJ insisted that non-Charedi students stop their learning and enlist.
https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-481230-00.html
"We're at the point where you're expecting ..."
I'm not expecting...
"UTJ insisted that non-Charedi students stop their learning and enlist."
Like I said, you've been misinformed. Porush read a reply on behalf of Gallant about what the security establishment concluded. It wasn't UTJ doing anything. It wasn't their decision to draft anyone.
No. You've been misinformed.
"Meir Porush responded in the Knesset plenum on behalf of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the government, as to why it is necessary to draft pre-military academy students early."
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/384538
"The government’s decision to draft national religious yeshiva ... was defended in the Knesset by Jerusalem Affairs Minister Meir Porush, of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/inside-the-government-funded-group-arranging-idf-exemptions-for-yeshiva-students/
מאיר פרוש, הציג מטעם מערכת הביטחון והעומד בראשה את ההחלטה להקדים את גיוסם של 1,300 מתנדבי שנת שירות, תלמידי מכינות קדם צבאיות, ישיבות הסדר וישיבות ציוניות.
https://www.themarker.com/news/2024-02-02/ty-article/.highlight/0000018d-6910-d971-a38f-79b22a1d0000
פרוש ענה בשם גלנט מדוע חשוב להקדים, ברקע המלחמה, את גיוס בני המכינות וישיבות ההסדר.
https://www.inn.co.il/news/627992
Did he oppose it? Did the Charedi leadership encourage protests?
Or did they agree?
Know
But does that really answer the question? I am in complete agreement with you on the critical importance of learning Torah. But we stop all the time to daven, for kiddush, to do chesed, to prepare for Pesach, and even (sometimes) to help our wives. So when a terrible enemy appears to kill us, our families, and our fellow Jews, and we have an obligation to defend, why is it any different? (And, I will add, I think we are only talking about a relatively small age segment of the fighting age male population of the Charedi community.)
That is a kind of conversation worth having. I think anyone here agrees that the Chareidi situation is not ideal. The question is what's the alternative? Do you actually have a conherent way to keep the Charedi mission alive asking with some kind of compromise? And remember, this is all while we are dealing with an opponent who will take an arm if we give them a finger so things are not so simple.
הסדר at least for those not attending סדרים with seperate units.
@Jerry S.
Correct, and in light of what incoherent charedism avows, what is the purpose of responding to them in scholarly terms except for us coherent folks to preempt chareidi fury and wave both hands and declare:
אתה צריך לסתום את הפה ולעזוב את זה כאילו...
Or as Ring Lardner says, ""Shut up," he explained.""
That has nothing to do with this conversation. The question we are discussing is within the context of Judaism and its accepted tenets, within that we are being asked here to be more clear. You are referring to your uneducated view that all of religion, from beginning to end, is nonsense.
They haven't answered the points and arguments of those Rabbanim who state it is obligatory to join Tzhal. You refuse to see what is in front of you!? Superfluous statements are not serious detailed halachik argument.
Please see my comments below. Thank you.
Which?
About the need to present both sides of the argument and offer a rebuttal?
About the need to present all sides and DEMONSTRATE through scholarship HOW a certain side Demonstrates better scholarship.
But what if one side ignores an entire section of scholarly literature? Must we engage with their ignorance? Is it not enough to highlight said literature? With such highlights much of the discussion falls away easily.
If that were true, yes.
But it's not.
They have in fact produced many coherent, comprehensive, insightful, and scholarly arguments explaining their position. But you cannot expect them to comment on blogs, or engage in protracted back-and-forths with every rasha and kofer.
Perhaps you could provide even one reference to a single such comprehensive discussion. Or else go away.
Would you be so kind as to point to examples? Doesn't have to be online. In what volume of which Rabbinic journal or in which sefer has Rav Landau, for instance, presented his arguments in support of his statements widely-disseminated to haredi media and on pashkevilim?
Letter from Rabbi Yeshoshua Eichenstein
https://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=132930
https://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=132929
https://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=132928
Thank you.
I take it that you might not be familiar with how professional scholars in non-Torah disciplines present arguments within their own disciplines, but I take it that you are familiar with shaila and teshuva literature and with articles published in Rabbinnic journals.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't one see a presentation of many sides of an argument, followed by the author showing why a particular argument is superior to the others he brought?
Do you think the document you linked to is consistent with that scholarly standard, even within the world of classical rabbinnics?
Did you read the letter? He directly addresses the main argument for universal military service, which is שויון בנטל. Just because he doesn't use academic jargon, or quote many academic sources with footnotes, which might be more to your taste, doesn't mean he is failing to address the issue.
These letters are written on a popular level. They declare rather than expound. The reason why they fail to impress is not due to lack of academic sources, but because of the lack of Torah sources. He mentions concepts like "Torah protects" and שבט לוי, but fails to delve into those concepts. He neglects to define them, or to cite sources which delineate the boundaries of their application. Instead he opts for an all-embracing impressionistic application which goes beyond what the sources imply.
A rather crude analogy would be the term תיקון עולם which has very narrow application in הלכה, and perhaps also a distinct application in mysticism. But the reformers ignore the classic halachic limits, and instead opt for all-embracing impressionistic doctrine which not only is not warranted by classic halachic sources, but violates them.
Another analogy would be the שלא יעלה בחומה which the Satmars apply an all-embracing impressionistic prohibition but ignore the classic sources which put clear limits on the prohibition.
He's quoting a slogan. He doesn't bring the rabbinnic arguments that support that position.
BTW, in terms of what I am familiar with, if you want to make this personal, I am not an academic scholar, but someone with an extremely haredi semicha who davens in a shul that is haredi in the extreme,and who is more familiar with rabbinnic journals and shu"t than he is with academic journals, although I read both.
You're wasting your time.
I served in miluim this year for 107 days. I lost several close friends and my wife became seriously ill.
Before recent events, I naively believed that chareidim would slowly understand that they must serve and work and that trends were in the right direction. I came across your blog quite by accident but found it interesting, I naively imagined that the comments from chareidim to your posts were reflective of extremists only.
Following their abhorrent response to events, point blank refusing to share the burden of service, and my own attempt to better understand their society (for want of a better word) by reading what they think in their words, I understand that words are useless. They have a deep inferiority complex and hatred for the outside world and no attempt at reason will help. At the same time, their society is both deceptively strong, but incredibly brittle, held together by billions of dollars in direct and indirect funding and enforced ignorance.
When this war finishes, we will topple our anti-Zionist government and replace it with parties committed to the state of Israel.
Change will come by force or not at all. There will be no useless dialogue with hateful man-children.
We will cut off all their funding.
We will do everything possible that their children are no longer held in enforced ignorance.
We will pass laws obligating all to serve or lose any and all benefits. Hopefully, those who don't serve can be denied the right to vote as well.
Within a decade, Charedi society will change radically. Their official parties and old demented leaders will continue to rail against change but the best antidote to their ingrained fear and hatred will be 1) removal of poverty when they are no longer dependent on their cult leaders for money and begin to be affluent by their own industrious nature 2) contact with regular Israelis in the army and workplace, breaking down barriers of hatred 3) removal of ignorance of science and history, allowing them to think from their own perspective and not one of enforced ignorance
The biggest mistake will be to engage in any attempt at compromise. We've had 70 years to try that. It hasn't worked. Israelis are beginning to understand that it takes two sides to compromise and when one side is totally unwilling to change, the other side has to adopt the same attitude.
The haredim can change or not, but the public that has been subsidizing their lifestyle is past fed up with subsidizing and underwriting their society. Just throwing more money at an increasingly large pool of recipients is an unworkable budgetary and management model. On top of that, the lack of anything resembling responsibility for the larger Jewish society, even a lack of or basic gratitude towards their donors, isn't winning them any friends.
I wish there were more people like you on this blog then these guys like Zundel, who cannot think straight nor rational . They are in a world of darkness.
Anyway, you are totally right - it will only change by force. These free loaders will never give up their free lifestyles. These entire arguments with them is just a waste of precious time. I wait for the day that the rest of society takes up force, whichever way that plays out. I do hope it is sooner then later.
I hope you are right…. I think these people are so indoctrinated they have gone past no return
אל יתהלל חוגר כמפתח
Your 'we will's sound like the original Zionist argument - we will build a state where we can live in dignity among the nations, safe from persecution and hate.
Maybe one day 'you will'. So far you have failed in your first undertaking, and you are unlikely to see much success in your second.
The 'original zionist argument' has brought results infinitely superior to anything that the charedi mutation of judaism has created. The Jewish people today have their own state, and not just any state but one of the most affluent, advanced and happy in the world. Chareidi society has created a shadow world of poverty, misery and hatred. They are not content with making their own lives miserable but are doing their best to destroy the state of Israel as well and the frightening thing is that they may succeed.
"Chareidi society has created a shadow world of poverty, misery and hatred."
That's rather harsh and unjustified.
Consider for example: https://www.jns.org/why-are-the-ultra-orthodox-the-happiest-group-in-israel/
So you will do something, and then change the goalposts after you fail at your new plan
No problem.
"But more than fifty years and two generations have since passed. What was destroyed in the Holocaust has been rebuilt a hundred times over. There are vastly more people in full-time learning than at any point in recent history. And charedim are a rapidly growing huge sector of the population. And the military requirements of the country are growing. And so presumably, it’s now time to rescind the temporary measure of mass kollel?"
Maybe, maybe not. 50 years ago the Israeli army was a rag-tag bunch. And they faced military threats from numerous countries which were many times stronger than they were.
I think the people who are best suited to apply the chazon ish to our circumstances are people who actually follow in his footsteps. That would be people from bnei brak a whole lot more than people from Ranana.
Now, I understand that you currently identify with a group which rejects that approach. Which is your prerogative. But if you're going to cite to R Zevin as evidence, https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rav-zevin-is-this-daas-torah you should stop pretending that you have any handle on what the chazon ish would say. (To be clear, I have enormous respect for R Zevin. But he represents an approach which was obviously rejected by the chazon ish and brisker rav. That doesn't make him wrong. But *you* ought to be honest and just say that you oppose the chazon ish's approach. Your issue isn't really with mishpacha magazine or R Ginzberg.)
"Rabbi Ginzberg fumes against these voices in the charedi world that call for change. He does not provide any reasons as to why they are actually wrong. Instead, he rages against them for having the chutzpah to disagree with the Daas Torah of the Gedolim."
1) 'Fumes' and 'rages' is your own projection.
2) You are correct that he doesn't offer any reasons. He says so himself: "However, my focus here is not on this nearly century-old source of division and discord in our small country that is being battered from every corner of the earth; nor will I explore the politics or halachic background of the issue.
I am limiting my discussion to the painful phenomenon of people who have always identified themselves with the Torah tzibbur — in varying capacities — who have decided to force their way into this debate and voice their “daas Torah.”"
Step 1) RAG writes about X. He himself notes that he isn't writing about Y. Step 2) You point out that he didn't debunk Y. Step 3) You open the comments section to all manner of people to weigh in on just how bankrupt the chareidi world is. Step 4) Charedi trolls show up and hit back. Step 5) You write some woe-is-me post complaining about nasty the trolls are and ask whether they should be banned.
He fumes you can feel his anger coming out of his nose.
Charedim learn so much Torah, and yet they are uncapable of deciding any Torah issue for themselves. They must blindly accept what the Gdolei Hador decide, whether it makes sense or not. The Gdolei Hador themselves can't decide anything either! Due to Yeridas HaDoros, there is no way to cancel the Chazon Ish's temporary decision, even though the circumstances are clearly not relevant anymore.
I think there's an illuminating parallel with the Christian world in the 16th century: greater literacy and availability of books led to the reformation, which gave greater primacy to the pshat, so to speak (so analogous to modern orthodox/rationalist Judaism). While the Catholics doubled down on the infallibility of the pope, when he proclaimed anything ex cathedra (ie in his official capacity)
I don’t think that is a fair representation of catholic doctrine. It Protestantism is much closer to Reform Judaism, where everyone reads what they want into scripture, and Catholicism is much closer an Orthodox strain where sources and doctrine hold more sway.
Is this one of your 95 theses?
One of my 95 chiddushim ;)
As I have written to Rav Natan recently I found his comments to be worthy.. However, in view of his approach, I think the term 'rationalist Judaism' does not give justice to his approach and wrongly concedes too much to misguided forms of Haredi outlooks - and therefore it would be important to rename this approach as essentially normative Jewish thought. I haven't a suggestion al regel ahas, but I feel the existing name is inappropriate.
It's a reference to the rationalist, mostly atheistic community, which for some reason he is trying to blend with Judaism. I hope he writes a post about it soon.
This blog is an exploration into the rationalist approach to Judaism that was most famously presented by Maimonides.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rationalistjudaism/p/defining-rationalism?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1hp7xr
Maimonides isn't mentioned here:
Also, what I wrote in my comment comes from the about section of this Substack.
It also explores contemporary rationalist approaches, is also in the about section. But yes he does mention maimonides. My mistake.
When he talks about contemporary rationalists approaches, he is referring to people who continue to espouse this medieval approach in a Jewish context. Not the rationatlists associated with EA. The word has many meanings.
Sure it does. Rambam was the foremost medieval rationalist of Sepharad. “(This primarily refers the medieval rationalists of Sefarad, in contrast to the non-rationalist approach that subsequently emerged.)”
Look, you're claiming it's based on Maimonides. He writes a lot, and doesn't say that.
He says that all the time including in the post you quoted and the about section of this Substack which I quoted to you.
I read both this blog and some of the ones I think you might be referring to: zvi, Scott Alexander, marginal revolution, etc.
Honestly, you have no idea what you are talking about. The assumptions embedded in the secular rationalist crowd couldn’t be more different than what Rabbi slifkin reasons from. The subject matters discussed overlap only randomly. Your assertion is bizarre.
You mention there is a secular rationalist crowd. You'd consider this the Jewish rationalist crowd? It's not bizarre for someone ignorant like me to try to compare them to each other.
The difference between the "secular rationalist crowd" and the "Jewish rationalist crowd" is exactly that - one is secular and one is Jewish. The difference is literally in the name, why pretend it doesn't exist?
If it's so easy to explain, you tell me: What exactly is the difference?
Throwing the adjectives religious and secular beforehand isn't the slam dunk you're making it out to be.
There is a tab on top of the page called "Important Posts." In that list is a post called "Defining Rationalism." You can read it at https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/defining-rationalism
Those whose religion is a collection of "beliefs" and not logical thinking belong to the same group as the Christian, Muslim, and other religions. Because if there is no logic, then what is the difference?
I don't know why you falsify things. As I have made very clear in the past, that is absolutely not the meaning of the word that I am using. I suspect you know this.
I actually don't. Until reading your blog, which I only started doing recently, I'd only read about you.
While i have your attention, my husband ordered locusts and a book from your website. The locusts came but not the book. He wants to know why it's shipped separately. That said, if you were going to only send one, the locusts were more important. But he wants the book.
"my husband ordered locusts and a book from your website. The locusts came but not the book. He wants to know why it's shipped separately. That said, if you were going to only send one, the locusts were more important. But he wants the book."
🤣🤣🤣🤣Awesome!
Rav Slifkin,
It would be helpful if you would instruct commentators to indicate to whom they’re responding. In this format it’s difficult to follow the thread of the conversation.
To whom are you addressing : “I don't know why you falsify things.” Where does the discussion begin?
I hope he corrects the accusation of falsification. I corrected my error after David Ohsie showed me I was wrong. And deleted the first comment
Also, I don't appreciate being accused of falsifying things. Your blog is called rationalist Judaism, and if you Google rationalist, it doesn't mean "based on Maimonides and rational rabbinical sources". It is very reasonable for me to ask this. I am sure I'm not the only person who doesn't have years of background knowledge about you.
Thanks for treatment. All thinkers before the expulsion from Spain were rationalists. This includes Rabbi Yehuda Halevi who combined empiricism with rationalism. After that, there is rationalist writing in Orthodox Judaism to this day. See the list up to and including Franz Rosenzweig, in the book Julius Gutman, The Philosophy of Judaism, New York: Shoken second print 1976
For a very contrived definition of "thinker", maybe!!! Maimonides says that women should only leave their homes once a month - is that rationalist?
That is why Rabbi Slifkin and others use their brains (as the Rambam recommended) and do not follow that statement of the Rambam. In Rationalist Judaism, no one is infallible. That statement of Rambam is still followed by the (non-chabad) chassidim who generally don't allow women to drive or have any independent religious role and also increasingly (unfortunately) by the Litvish. Ironically, Chabad, which claims to follow Rambam, do give women a prominent role in the Chassidus.
Your comment regarding Rambam is 100% correct and is true not only for him but for every thinker who held to logical methods that have been passed over, such as Aristotelianism, Platonism and Neoplatonism. So why are they rationalists after all? Because these were the rules of logic in their time. And the rules of logic change mainly according to empirical findings but also following the accumulation of dead ends according to one or another structure of logical rules.
He's referring to a medieval Jewish rationalism before empiricism existed. The blog has nothing to do with the rationalism you are referring to and the blog far predates the popularization of the EA movement.
Let him disavow it for himself.
So most dati Jews are athiests?
You have until Yom Kippur to atone for that motzi shem ra.
No, I'm talking about the rationalist, mostly atheist community. Not the Jewish community.
It's pretty clear Rabbi Slifkin has read a lot of their work.
That has nothing to do with why he calls this blog rationalist Judaism.
He has to constantly come up with new ideas for posts, and you can tell they are strained lately. I think it's reasonable to ask what modern rationalist thought he does or does not embrace, based on his about section.
Your arguments are solid but they negate the gedolim so you're wrong. End of story... You cannot have an argument when that's the approach of most charedim. Given that this is a fact, the only solution is to provide incentives to people who serve and stop giving incentives to people who do not contribute to the greater society (govt should stop paying for daycare for non working men, should stop providing reductions on arnona, should stop paying out to schooling systems who are detrimental to the growth of our country). This however will not happen as both the right, and center (Gantz and co.) will never do that. Bottom line, I think the bigger criminals are the politicians. They know the score but aren't doing anything about it. Charedim are bigeder tinok shenishba.
"Charedim are bigeder tinok shenishba" - great call, clever and sharp usage of that phrase :)
Israeli citizens elect those politicians.
To be a bit more precise, those politicians who might be willing to do something on the issue (i.e., the non-charedi ones not named "Bibi") refuse to get together with others to solve this major problem out of narrow political interest, short-sightedness, and personal animus.
If the Attorney General would say, "You know, the charges we have against Bibi are kind of small potatoes. We'll drop them," and then Lieberman, Gantz, and Lapid would say, "We need to deal with these issues immediately, let's get together for that purpose, and just give up on our pet issues about Arabs and gays for a bit", then who knows what could happen. I have zero confidence in Bibi, but that's why he needs the push as well.
Netanyahu is not willing to do anything on this issue because he needs the Charedim to stay in power. So therefore it is everyone else's fault. This doesn't make any sense.
He wouldn't need the charedim to stay in power if Lieberman and Lapid weren't such jerks in refusing to sit with him. It's happened in the past.
Of course, Bibi *prefers* the charedim because they have no principles and can be paid off to do anything. But that doesn't mean that his opposition isn't to blame as well.
Who was it that blew up the last rightist coalition because he couldn’t stand to abide by his agreement to allow his partner to rotate in as PM? When you answer that question you will understand why Gantz and Saar refuse to sit with him (Gantz only joining for the emergency).
I imagine your hatred of Bibi is such that you can't take "yes" for an answer. I am no apologist for Bibi and have never voted for him (nor for any member of his current coalition), nor have any plans to (although like a certain other world leader, his enemies make it easier to support him); as I made it clear above, I hold him partially responsible for this mess.
But if we're going to talk about blowing up coalitions, let's see: Sharon had a right-wing coalition with no charedim. He blew it up to pull out of Gaza. Either he did it all on his megalomaniac lonesome, or the man who faced down Arab armies couldn't face down Condi Rice, or both, but he did it, and his coalition fell apart, not that they'd done anything about the charedi issue anyway, despite Tommy Lapid himself being a major partner there.
Here's another coalition: Bibi had a coalition with no charedim. Yair Lapid (a lightweight not to be confused in any way with his father) blew it up because he couldn't stop pushing for his insane fantasies of a Palestinian state. Playing to his base? American conniving? Don't ask me. But it wasn't Bibi.
And then after Bibi and Sara blew up another one, comes Bennett and Lapid, *also* with no charedim, and *also* taking not one step to solve that issue, and *again* Lapid can't shut up about his precious Palestinian state. Boom goes the coalition.
Gantz and Eizenkot are in enough American pockets that we know where they stand on the issue; they're just keeping their mouths shut, wisely.
It's just amazing. I provide endless analyses, whereas your polemicists just have slogans. And as for fairness and mutual responsibility, you can't even think of a Torah source!
The article and ensuing comments are so stupid.
There is a fine balance between emuna and yediah, trust and intimate knowledge, and until one learns the skill of the trade, he actually *is* better of trusting those who know better. People beginning the most menial jobs understand the importance of learning the skills before becoming an expert, but when it comes to live itself, everyone is a born chochom. They learn gemara for three years and already know enough to argue on the greatest Jewish minds.
The reason why those who learn for so many more years actually trust the gedolim more is because they understand what a gadol knows and they appreciate their own limitations. Those who already know everything have no concept of what they're missing.
That being said, I wholly agree that the concept of daas Torah had been hijacked and grossly misused.
The concept of "Daas Torah" is the new Avodah Zara of today. Worship it all costs. That's the message du-jour.
As Mishpacha keeps printing this drivel, they are digging the entire Charedi camp into a hole that they will never dig themselves out. Ultimately Emes/truth and the godly gift of Eretz Yisrael will prevail.
Couldn’t agree more, the biggest irony of “daas torah”, is the exact concept of following blindly was the misnagdims apposition to chasidus.
However now that in Israel and now lakewood religion is directly aligned with politics and not God, “Daas Torah” has been used to gaslight into submission.
I grew up in the shadow of families that did the same thing in the 1940's - listened blindly to "Gedolim" who knew nothing about War, Hitler nor politics. Any chance of escape of these families was burned out by these Gidolim.
Today we make the exact same mistakes Can't we learn our lesson for once, we paid with so many precious lives to go along with this stupidity.
As far as I can see, Zionism is the Avoda Zara of the day. People are proud that their children can die on its altar. Boggles my mind, but that sounds like the Molech of nowadays.
People are proud to have a state that can and does accept Jewish refugees from anywhere. Millions of Jews have escaped persecution in eastern Europe, the Arab countries, Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union, France, and elsewhere due to the existence of Israel. Compare to the situation just 10 years before Israel's establishment where millions of Jews died because no country would accept them. Losing a few thousand soldiers in war to save millions is a price well worth paying. And since that's the situation, being one of the soldiers who risks their life to ensure the continued existence of this homeland is also something to be proud of. After all it's hard to imagine a bigger mitzvah than risking your life to perform pikuach nefesh for millions of other Jews.
I am sure all Avoda Zaras have their logic.
And that 'escaped persecution' assumes the persecution happened spontaneously.
Daas Torah is kefirah b'ikar. It elevates Rabbis to the level of gods. The religion of the Haredim has not been Judaism for more than a century.
I would not go that far. A better comparison is to Reform Judaism.
Reform Jews are monotheists. Haredim are polytheists.
That's slander.
Which one? That Reform Jews are monotheists (rather than atheists) or that Haredim are polytheists (rather than monotheists)? I know idolatry when I see it.
Nathan, you’ve made the error of applying logic and rational debate to those who are fearful and emotional. They claim they have sharpened their minds learning. In reality they have developed an echo chamber as insulated and full of incoherent rage as any online featuring the alt-right or far left, trying to shape a world they sing like to their misguided beliefs
Chazal taught an actual Halacha that sons must teach their sons and trade and that one should not be supported by the community. Medieval rabbis, as an "emergency measure", felt they had the ability to reassess that actual law. But now we're going to say contemporary rabbis don't have the ability to reassess what was always just an "emergency measure" proposed by the Chazon Ish??
They do which is why many reject היתר מכירה while on some level conceding it's validity in the past.
I read this article on the first days and found it very disturbing but also illogical. The author essentially concludes that the Chazon Ish's opinion can never be changed until basically mashiach comes because nobody will ever be as great as him. The elevation of any human being to that level of infallibility to me seems utterly un-Jewish. Worse, each subsequent "leader" gets themselves out of making a decision by falling back on "well if the previous 'leader' said he wasn't capable of doing it, then who am I?'" Faux modesty that in reality is just an evasion of responsibility. I put "leader" in quotes because don't call yourself a leader if you don't take decisions. At least the Chazon Ish stood up for what he believed and made the call.
Also, I would have thought that the "ultimate kefirah" would be denying Torah m'Sinai.
What you see as "Just plain incoherency" is really "Just plain hypocrisy"..