Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Discussing idolatry II - Studying books of other religions and heresy

Ploni Almoni wrote: "Discussing idolatry - parameters":
There is another teshuvah (I am depending on Dr. Eidensohn to share it with you. It is his decision if he wants to) where Reb Moshe paskens based on the Rambam that it is prohibited to read/study books like the new testiment NT-in fact any other religion. He emphasizes that there is no possibility of a leniency. I know no posek that disagrees. Why would they?

A friend told me to look once more and I did. What you did is not enough. You have to teach and lead. This is the purpose of writing. There are people out there who are permissive and your silence is as good as being matir. You even used oso hoish evne though it is not to be used-heter meikor hadin or not. The person made a "diyuk" to end up with the wrong result. If you fix it and my friend tells me to look again I will. if not then you join in with all the modern orthodox. It is just a matter of degree.
You are oversimplifying the issues. Furthermore there is clearly no obligation for anyone to read this blog and I am not trying to please everyone who complains that they don't like my judgment. The material I post is not meant to be the definitive comprehensive exposition of anything. There are many different type of people who read this blog and there is material I don't publish because it will probably be misunderstood or will be skipped because it is too esoteric. What you are pushing for is really not appropriate for a blog. Furthermore your understanding is too narrow and restrictive for a general pronouncement. I am simply trying to expand the horizons of the readers - without oversimplications or presenting material that will cause misunderstanding of the issues. In short - it would be better for you to get your reading material elsewhere

There are in fact a number of teshuvos of R' Moshe dealing with literature of missionaries or that which might weaken faith.

YD (3:73) - textbooks which teach evolution
YD (3:115) - concealing books that might weaken faith
YD (2:53) - prohibition of studying other religions
YD (1:172) - destroying missionary literature
YD (2:137) - destroying missionary literature
YD (3:43) - prohibition of ecumenical conferences

Similarly we have clear statement of the Rambam

Rambam(Hilchos Avoda Zara 2:2–3): Many books have been composed concerning idol worship. G-d has commanded us not to read these books at all and not even to think or talk about these practices. Even to look at an idol is prohibited…. Not only is idol worship prohibited even in thought—but all thoughts which could cause a person to reject any of the fundamentals of Judaism are also prohibited. This is because the human mind is limited and not everyone has the ability to ascertain truth properly. If a person is drawn after his thoughts, it will destroy the world. Because sometimes he will hold by idol worship and sometimes by Judaism and while he is thinking about whether the alternatives to Torah are true he will be involved in heresy…therefore Torah commanded us not to follow after hearts and after our eyes that we shouldn’t be drawn after things which our limited minds can’t deal with… and end up losing Olam HaBah

Rav Yosef Karo(Kesef MishnaAvoda Zara 2:3): These words of the Rambam are clear and self-evident.

However the Rambam (Letter on Astrology) acknowledges that he has read the books of idolatry.
Know, my masters, that I myself have investigated much into these matters. The first thing I studied is that science which is called judicial astrology—that is, (the science) by which man may know what will come to pass in the world or in this or that city or kingdom and what will happen to a particular individual all the days of his life. I also have read in all matters concerning all of idolatry, so that it seems to me there does not remain in the world a composition on this subject, having been translated into Arabic from other languages, but that I have read it and have understood its subject matter and have plumbed the depth of its thought. From those books it became clear to me what the reason is for all those commandments that everyone comes to think of as having no reason at all other than the decree of Scripture. I already have a great composition on this subject in the Arabic language (namely, the Guide of the Perplexed) with lucid proofs for every single commandment but this is not required of us now. I now return to the subject of your inquiry
Gedolim such as Rav Yaakov Emden were quite knowledgeable in the New Testament. The Maharal also prescribed study in order to be able to refute heretics

Maharal (Nesivos HaTorah 1:14):
It is prohibited to learn from a teacher who is not fit. However, this is not a valid objection since the prohibition applies only to learning from a heretic in person. It is only close personal contact that is prohibited and thus reading a book composed by a heretic would not be present this problem. Nevertheless the question remains whether it is permitted to study their books when they contain attacks against the Torah concerning such thing as the Creation of the world, G‑d’s knowledge, survival of the soul after death and whether the World to Come exists. Perhaps they should be prohibited because they might be a harmful influence? ... However Avos (2:14) says that one must know how to respond to heretical views and if one has not been exposed to heresy how would it be possible to respond to these views? Obviously, it is necessary to be aware of the views of heretics. However, this is obviously permitted only if the intent is to learn their views in order to be able to refute them. If he has this motivation, then it is permitted to read their books and there is no need to avoid them out of the concern of being influenced. However to learn their books and quote their views in order to explain Torah when these heretics have no portion in the Torah—the name of the wicked is to be obliterated... Recently these types of heretical works have circulated and they have negatively influenced people even concerning the foundations of faith... However, if the discussion found in these works supports and reinforces the words of our sages then it appropriate to accept. However if it against our sages even in the slightest, G‑d forbid that it be accepted at all. The general rule is to study their words in order to be able to refute their criticisms…. One should always be careful and diligent with his entire being to establish the truth. This is what our Sages commanded forcefully that one should be very diligent in their studies to learn what to reply to the heretic… It is obvious that this is not limited to Greek philosophy in which they analyzed things entirely with their intellect. In fact, it is a caution to be very diligent and to think carefully to be able to reply to their assertions in order to establish the true religion…

It would seem that 1) studying other religions simply for the sake of knowledge is prohibited by everyone 2) However if there is a clear needed purpose for refuting the questions of others or ones own questions it is permitted for some individuals. Ask your posek.

14 comments:

  1. The Tiferes Yisrael on Sanhedrin 10:1 ('אות ח) states that the prohibition against reading idolatrous and heretical texts is only as a set study (קבע) but in a not set manner (עראי), there is no problem for a believer (המאמין לא יחוש מלקרות בהן כדי לידע מה להשיב לאפיקורוס).

    Interestingly, the Tiferes Yisrael describes the Rambam's psak on this issue as very stringent (החמיר מאד) and he points out that even the Rambam permits such study under some circumstances.

    Obviously, in connection to halachic issues (such as the issue that began this discussion - utilizing the name of "oso haish"), it may well be essential to become familiar with the idolatrous texts in order to issue a correct psak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Lezara,

    I appreciate Dr. Eidelssohn's citing his the material for analysis. Now that you see the basic possible leniency we can go on.

    I believe that it is actually very simple. The gedole hador from all groups (R. Moshe Feinstein,the Lubavitcher Rebbie and R. Soloveitchik) have all agreed to prohibit engaging in ecumenical discussions. It is true that the rabbinate in Israel has to show face and that is there problem. However, the average individual (even Torah scholar) should not be faced with this and can easily avoid it. One can say "I do not talk about politics or religion". Reb Moshe Feinstein prohibits using the heter of lehovin ulehoros. There is absolutely no reason to learn this.

    What I see today is that many of our young men who are under 21 taking courses and reading the new testiment. There are synagouges offering lectures wth orthodox professors studying their bible.

    How does all this fit into the spirt of everything quoted.

    By the way, the zpofnas paaneach in Hilchos Avodah Zoroh exonerates the rambam by saying he studied ancient obsolete religions to explain the reason for many of the mitzvos. But, he had no need to learn Christianity. He was in a moslemcountry and the church was not an issue. I doubt if he looked at the Koran. From what I am told it is not a theological book. He needed to know about the priests to explain (for example) why we do not cut our side burns.

    So, I think it is very simple. 99% of the people reading this blog have no reason except curiousity. all the leniences cited are based on "how to answer" and this should be prohibited since one can and should avoid confrontation.

    I realize that what I write is not popular which is why I am getting so much flack. But, let anyone who read it tell himself that he did it because he knew in advance he was going to fight missioanries. It is idle curiosity. The issue "al tifnu.." The word tifnu implies attraction. It has a pulling effect. It does more harm than good. Keep your day job and avoid confrontation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The concept of "דע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס" applies to much more than ecumenical dialogue. It includes individual encounters in the workplace and even within one's own mind.

    This concept imposes on us a responsibility to have sufficient knowledge to respond to challenges to our faith with genuine confidence based on our own knowledge.

    For the most part, this refers to Torah knowledge, being that the overwhleming majority of such challenges can be resolved with sufficient Torah knowledge. It would also require some serious knowledge of other subjects, such as science and history.

    Knowledge of other religions is also relevant. It is true, in my opinion, that it is unnecesary and would probably be counter-productive for most frum Jews to read the New Testament (even just in the bathroom). Nevertheless, for those frum Jews who have a strong inclination towards philosophical thinking, such studies - בדרך עראי - can be useful. My personal experience has demonstrated that the Tiferes Yisrael's shita - "המאמין לא יחוש מלקרות בהן" - is manifestly true. One who is well-grounded in Torah philosophy will not find his emunah weakened by such readings; on the contrary, their emunah will be reinforced. Also, in my experience, this knowledge has been of great utility in dealing with students of all ages who are troubled by these issues. Even the mere fact that my students know that I am familiar with these materials has been helpful.

    As an example, I was once approached by a young teenage girl (who, being a girl, was not a student of mine) who was going through rebellious phase and was attracted to the popular image of Jesus. The fact that she knew that I was familiar with these texts gave me an authority to talk to her that none of her other teachers had.

    I don't think that we should be including comparative religion in the curriculum of our yeshivos. But for those individuals who are so inclined and properly prepared, this knowledge can be very useful.

    As for the specific cases you mention, I obviously cannot say. While I can imagine circumstances when a synagogue rabbi might feel it is necessary to introduce a shiur dealing with such topics, I admit that it would be odd.

    ReplyDelete
  4. About usage of Oso hoish

    To lazera,

    let us accept the pesak of the geroh so that we can all be on the same page. But, I want to point you to the teshuvah of R. Azriel Hildesheimer #180. In it he does give a heter to a teacher (this was in Germany where it would have been dangerous) to say J. The teacher had gentile students. But, R. Azriel concludes that in general it is a prohibition that everyone practices and a Rabbi may not permit it. So, even the geroh who was lenient still said "oso hoish". So, I think the issue should be moot. It is just not done.

    The Shulchan Oruch 147 (as well as many teshuvos) require that when it has to be mentioned it should be in the form of a pujarative. One should say Dec 25 not the Holiday etc. As Reb Moshe said,mythology is permitted if end up mocking it. No chashivus allowed and certainly no complients.

    He does point out that the use of JC or C would be prohibited. That is a term of elokus. I am sorry to say that I did not understand this? All it means is Mashiach. To me this is strange. But, I accept it. If someone wants to venture an explantion I am all ears.

    Let me also add the heter that Dr. Eidensohn brings that one may read it to answer ones own questions is not a very practical one. I doubt that reading the NT will help. Whatever bothers one should be articulated and a chochom should then be consulted who can put one on the right track. Let that chochom suggest proper reading.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear lazera,

    This is one time that I think we should learn from Lubavitch. They are out there and confront daily what you describe. they are successful without learning the NT. I like their motto. A little light removes much darkness. By studying our philosophical sources - the Kuzari, Moreh Nevuchim etc. we will get to the fear of heaven.

    I am sad for those that have to go into waters that are not ours to solve their problems.

    The work place is not one for discussing religion. It can be avoided. the specail cases you describe could be handled the way they Lubavitcher do. Let us learn from them. They know how to handle such matters.

    Frankly, i would appreciate if you avoided the use of the term oso hoish. If my discussion leads to its use the what is gained? Imitate the geroh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ploni almoni said...
    "This is one time that I think we should learn from Lubavitch. They are out there and confront daily what you describe. they are successful without learning the NT."

    I disagree.

    First of all, even if we accept Lubavitch's success in kiruv at face value, their approach does not appeal to everyone. (No specific kiruv style/methodology/organization appeals to everyone.) There are many non-frum Jews who are interested in Torah but are turned off by Chabad (for a variety of reasons).

    Secondly, we are by no means dealing only with "kiruv rechokim" issues here. Any number of frum people are troubled by these issues, and these troubles are only exacerbated by those who imply that there is something wrong with them for asking the questions. It is also exacerbated by teachers/rebbeim that mock other religions when they clearly know nothing about them.

    Finally, considering Lubavitch's internal hashkafic problems, it is rather silly to say that their approach to hashkafa has been working well for them.

    "By studying our philosophical sources - the Kuzari, Moreh Nevuchim etc. we will get to the fear of heaven."

    While this may not be relevant to our core discussion, I would point out that many of the classic philosphical seforim of the rishonim (esp. Moreh Nevuchim) are of little use today as mainstream hashkafa seforim. While there is, of course, a great deal of excellent material in these seforim, as a whole these seforim are speaking to an audience whose concerns were so different from our own that much of their discourse is simply not relevant to us. Indeed, this is the main reason why we find these seforim so difficult to study nowadays.

    One major exception is the Kuzari, which, while not immune to the problem, is surprisingly "modern" in its approach.

    An experienced talmid chacham will, of course, utilize all of these sources (in combination with a wide range of later sources) in developing a hashkafic approach to present to his talmidim. But these seforim are of limited utility for the talmidim themselves.

    When dealing with people, especially young people, who are troubled by hashkafic issues, you will be wasting your time by learning Moreh Nevuchim with them, or even Kuzari.

    Some philosophical seforim have weathered the ages better than others. Mesillas Yeshorim speaks very well to a modern audience. (Shaarei Teshuva or Orchos Tzadikim, not so well.) Much of the Rambam's writing does so as well (but not the Moreh). I remember once teaching the fifth perek of Shemoneh Perakim to a non-frum group and they had difficulty believing that it wasn't a modern text. (Other perakim would not have gone over as well.) I have also had success with Drashos HaRan, which also has a very modern "feel".

    For serious thinkers, R' Dessler's seforim are very effective and provide a synthesis of a wide range of sources.

    R' Avigdor Miller's seforim are very effective for young people from a yeshiva background because they speak directly to modern concerns and in modern language. (Rav Miller is an example of a talmid chacham who became very familiar with the NT and used the knowledge very effectively. Unfortunately, his approach to scientific issues is a bit dated and debatable and could be counter-productive with someone from a more secular background.)

    "I am sad for those that have to go into waters that are not ours to solve their problems."

    When the source of the problem is from outside, it is sometimes necessary to go outside for the cure. A medical analogy would be a vaccine, using the disease itself for the cure.

    In any case, whether you feel sad is not relevant. If it is necessary then it must be done.

    "The work place is not one for discussing religion. It can be avoided."

    So, a non-frum Jew in the workplace asks me what's wrong with Jews for Jesus, my response should be, "I don't discuss religion at work." After all, some things are more important than religion.

    Incidentally, that response might be better than an emotional attack on the "idolatrous" Christians, which will simply convince the non-frum Jew that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    "the specail cases you describe could be handled the way they Lubavitcher do."

    I am not aware of any "special cases" that I described. Nor, as I already stated, do I think that Lubavitch has much to teach us about this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ploni Almoni said:
    "The work place is not one for discussing religion. It can be avoided."
    LazerA responded
    So, a non-frum Jew in the workplace asks me what's wrong with Jews for Jesus, my response should be, "I don't discuss religion at work." After all, some things are more important than religion.

    Incidentally, that response might be better than an emotional attack on the "idolatrous" Christians, which will simply convince the non-frum Jew that you have no idea what you are talking about.
    ================
    LazerA's viewpoint is that of the Maharal (Nesivos HaTorah 1:14) which I have already posted.
    He also discusses this at the end of Be'er HaGolah #7. In essence he says not being able to answer genuine questions and telling the questioner that you don't want to discuss it - conveys weakness in faith.

    ספר באר הגולה - הבאר השביעי (המשך)
    והדברים אשר כתב הם בענין הדת ג"כ, ועם כל זה כתב שאין ראוי שישנא דבריו רק יקרבם בתכלית הקירוב. וכתב שם שאם לא יעשה כך ולא יקבל דברי החולקים עליו באהבה רק ידחם דבר זה בודאי חולשת דבריו שאומרים עליו שלכך דוחה דבריו, כי החלש אין לו קיום עם המתנגד אליו ולכך אין ראוי להרחיק שום דבר המתנגד אל דעתו לאהבת החקירה וידיעה. ובפרט אותו שלא כוון לקנתר רק להגיד האמונה אשר אתו, אף אם הדברים הם נגד אמונתו ודתו אין לומר אליו אל תדבר ותסתום דברי פיך, שא"כ לא יהיה בירור הדת. ואדרבה דבר כמו זה אומרים תדבר ככל חפצך וכל אשר אתה רוצה וחפץ לומר, ולא תאמר אם היה אפשר לי לדבר הייתי מדבר יותר, כי אם עושה זה שסותם את פיו שלא ידבר זה הוא מורה על חולשת הדת כמו שאמרנו. ולכך דבר זה הפך מה שחושבים קצת בני אדם, כי חושבים כאשר אין רשאי לדבר על הדת הוא חזוק הדת ותוקף שלו, ואין זה כך כי העלם דברי המתנגד בדת אין זה רק בטול וחולשת הדת, כאשר אומרים סגור פיך מלדבר. ולכך הראשונים ואף אם נמצא דבר מה בספרים שהוא כנגד דתם, לא היו המתנגדים דוחים דבר זה, כי השכל מחייב שלא יהיה מניעה מזה כלל ולסגור פיו של אדם בדבר שהוא מגיע אל הדת, רק פתשגן הדת נתונה אל הכל. ובפרט הכתוב כי הכותב בספר אין כוונתו רק ללמוד, ואין כאן דבר שיהיו מכוונים להכעיס כדי לקנטר, ולכך אין לסתום הדבר הזה ולבטל. ולא מצינו מעולם שיהיו מונעים ומוחים בדבר זה כלל, ולא היה כאן פוצה פה ומצפצף בדבר זה.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Regarding being ignorant of other relgiions:

    Rambam (Avos 2:14): You should know what to answer the apikorus: It is necessary to learn things to be able to refute the apikorus if they ask you questions. It is important to note that this only applies to a non Jewish heretic but one should not argue with a Jewish heretic since it only makes them worse and they intensify their abusive comments. Therefore, one should not speak to them at all since it serves no constructive purpose and you can’t help them at all... Furthermore, even though the ability to respond to the heretics requires that one learn the non Jewish religions, one should take care not to accept any aspect of their religion. You should constantly be aware that G d is fully cognizant of what is in your heart. Therefore ones heart should always be directed at having the proper faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Rambam there is expanding on the flow of the mishna: "דע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס ודע לפני מי אתה עמל"
    The second phrase is a cautionary reminder about the first.

    I would point out that it should be self-evident that the overwhelming majority of non-frum Jews are not in the category of the Jewish heretic described by the Rambam.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was not going to continue but I see people drifting in the wrong direction. The excuses given is "lehovin ulhoros" and/or "what to answer an apikores". Let us be practical. Even though, Reb Moshe Feinstein et al have assured you still look back to different times to find your leniencies. Why would anything we say make a difference to 99.9% of the people you will encounter. You know that you will not convnce them. Does anything I say change what you want to do? Why should they be different? Avoid them.

    But, let us talk about the one who comes to you and you can now help him or her.

    Reading the NT is not the way. We all know the story. The real issue is the prooftexts from our tanach as well as theirs that they use. You will not recognize them and I am sure you still do not know them even if you read the NT. For this, there is a whole literature that our rishonim compiled. The Ramban wrote up a vikuach that handles the trinity issue etc. There is a book translated and annotated by Professor Berger that has all the questions and provides answers. Without that you will lose anyway if confronted by an expert or a person who really studied. No one on this blog by reading the NT alone will figure out answers. For example, they will ask you "Bereshis boro elokim" - is not the word elokim plural? You need to know that "boro" is singular. They will ask "naaseh adam..". etc. etc. They will point to Jerimayoh and then a passage in the NT.

    I find that these excuses are lame and will not help you. Someone said that because they read the NT they could talk to a student. If I was involved, I would say I read it even though I did not and I am sure I could have helped her. Do not fool yourself if you think that reading the NT helps. Sorry for my candor. I agree with Reb Moshe. The damage is more to the reader and yotzoh sechoro behefsedo.

    I spoke to X (i will not mention his name-I do not want to blow his cover) who debates with missionaries. He told me he never read the NT and is able to best them. He knows from our writings the key pesukim and this is enough.

    In short, I believe that you are deluding yourself. Let us not turn this in a debate. That you will win. Just don't fool yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really cannot get over what I have read. Reb Moshe assured and people dig out the same sources he rejected. Wow!

    You are now saying that a student to prepare himslef for life must read the NT so that he will know how to debate the possible apikursim or help someone. Unbelievable. I repeat that the real way is to read those books I cited. And, they will give you chizuk. Their approach is to show that our tanach and Talmud forcasts oso hosih. This is what you will have to deal with. I suggest learning tanach first. No doubt, the readers of the NT do not know enough tanach. Come on. Let us fool others; not ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ploni Almoni's posts continue to baffle me. I am never sure what it is that he is responding to, and what exactly he is criticizing. Some of his comments appear to be to responding to statements that were not made by any participant in this discussion.

    ploni almoni said...
    "Even though, Reb Moshe Feinstein et al have assured you still look back to different times to find your leniencies."

    What "different times"? Do you mean looking in the seforim of rishonim and acharonim before R' Moshe?

    In my opinion, the most radical statement made in this discussion, thus far, was my own statement that for a frum Jew "who is well-grounded in Torah philosophy" and has "a strong inclination towards philosophical thinking" the study - בדרך עראי - of other relgions and their texts can be useful. I also believe that, under the proper conditions, such study is permitted. I based this opinion on a number of sources, including the Tiferes Yisrael I cited previously.

    I am not convinced that R' Moshe Feinstein would disagree. What I have seen of the teshuvos thus far (I haven't gone through all of them) would indicate that R' Moshe takes a fairly mainstream position based on the Rambam. As indicated previously, however, even the Rambam recognized that there were exceptions to this restriction.

    If you have any actual evidence to the contrary, please present it.

    "Why would anything we say make a difference to 99.9% of the people you will encounter. You know that you will not convnce them. Does anything I say change what you want to do? Why should they be different? Avoid them.

    This is a very strange statement. Are you not aware that there are many thousands of formerly non-observant Jews who have returned to full Torah observance? Many of these baalei teshuva began their journey based upon a personal encounter with a frum Jew.

    In my own personal experience, things that I have said to non-frum Jews have led to major changes in their lives. There is one family that is completely frum today that told me that the critical event was when, on our first encounter, I answered a single question that had been bothering them. I didn't even realize the sigificance of my response at the time.

    Obviously, we won't change everyone, but what we say can and does have a major impact on others. Your advice to "Avoid them" flies in the face of our responsibilities towards our fellow Jews as expressed in all of Torah literature, especially the words of our contemporary gedolim.

    "Reading the NT is not the way. We all know the story."

    Actually, most Jews, and many non-Jews, have little familiarity with the Christian story as it is actually presented in the NT. They are familiar with popular retellings of the story in movies or children's books.

    "The real issue is the prooftexts from our tanach as well as theirs that they use. You will not recognize them and I am sure you still do not know them even if you read the NT."

    You have no idea what the participants in this discussion may or may not know but you have no hesitation in assuming. (Shouldn't be surprising, since you were also arrogant enough to say, in a previous discussion, that the Gra and rishonim, were too ignorant to pasken shailos correctly.) Your arrogance is increasingly offensive.

    "For this, there is a whole literature that our rishonim compiled. The Ramban wrote up a vikuach that handles the trinity issue etc. There is a book translated and annotated by Professor Berger that has all the questions and provides answers. Without that you will lose anyway if confronted by an expert or a person who really studied. No one on this blog by reading the NT alone will figure out answers."

    First of all, no one in this discussion has ever suggested that "reading the NT alone" was a good idea. Clearly, familiarity with such texts could, at most, only be a part, and a relatively minor part, of any attempt towards "דע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס". This was already stated, explicitly, in a previous comment of mine.

    Secondly, the issue of prooftexts and debating missionaries is quite secondary to the main point I have been raising, which is, as I stated earlier, "a responsibility to have sufficient knowledge to respond to challenges to our faith with genuine confidence based on our own knowledge." This obligation would exist even if there were no missionaries.

    Thirdly, as I stated, our ability to respond should be "based on our own knowledge." I added this last clause based on a statement by רב משה אלמושנינו cited in the Midrash Shmuel (2:16) on the statement "דע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס". He says, essentially, that the obligation is to know enough to refute the apikoros based on one's own knowledge, not what one has heard or has read in books secondhand. One with second-hand knowledge will not be able to win a debate.

    So, yes, the books you have mentioned, and many like them, are very good and useful. For most frum Jews they are also sufficient. But for those who, as I described previously, are properly equipped, direct knowledge is far more effective.

    "Someone said that because they read the NT they could talk to a student. If I was involved, I would say I read it even though I did not and I am sure I could have helped her."

    I am having difficulty accepting that you would even propose such a tactic. You would simply lie? Asides from the serious ethical problems involved, how can you honestly believe that such a tactic would work? Kids are not stupid! Lying to the student would, almost certainly, have made the problem far worse.

    I honestly hope you are not involved in chinuch in any way.

    "I spoke to X (i will not mention his name-I do not want to blow his cover) who debates with missionaries. He told me he never read the NT and is able to best them. He knows from our writings the key pesukim and this is enough."

    Yes. Due to the tactics used by missionaries (focusing on "prooftexts" from Tanach) it is unnecessary to be familiar with the NT to defeat them.

    However, defeating a missionary only means that you have refuted his attempt to prove that Tanach endorses Christianity. You have not refuted Christianity, per se. To demonstrate weaknesses in the Christian religion itself (as is necessary when dealing with Jews who have already been ensnared), one must become familiar with the details of their religion.

    "Let us not turn this in a debate. That you will win."

    An interesting admission.

    "You are now saying that a student to prepare himslef for life must read the NT so that he will know how to debate the possible apikursim or help someone. Unbelievable.

    Yes, truly unbelievable, especially being that NO ONE EVER SAID THAT!

    "Come on. Let us fool others; not ourselves."

    Um, what exactly are you proposing here when you say, "let us fool others"? It is a disturbing statement, to put it mildly, but I would rather wait for a clarification before I condemn.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What I meant about losing a debate is that "no one wins an argumnt". Not any admission on my part.

    Lazera, I will not continue any more. But, what I meant about Lubavitcher was that they are involved in kruv and were able to do it without looking for any heterim.

    BTW There is anything unethical on my part doing what I said. I could have answered any of that girl's questions. Torah is enough. One may lie to make the peace. What bigger peace is there then making one frum.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ploni almoni said...
    "One may lie to make the peace. What bigger peace is there then making one frum."

    I'm actually kinda dumbfounded here.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.