Citations from Daas Torah See Questions-I-what-vs-why-vs-silence
R’ S. R. Hirsch (Nineteen Letters #18): [the leaders of Orthodoxy] became at first enemies of this philosophical spirit, and later of all specifically intellectual and philosophical pursuits in general. Certain misunderstood utterances [e.g., Bereishis Rabbah 44:1] were taken as weapons with which to repel all higher interpretations of the Talmud . . . The inevitable consequence was, therefore, that since oppression and persecution had robbed Israel of every broad and natural view of world and of life, and Talmud had yielded about all the practical results for life of which it was capable, every mind that felt the desire of independent activity was obliged to forsake the paths of study and research in general open to the human intellect, and to take its recourse to dialectic subtleties and hairsplitting. Only a very few [e.g., R’ Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari and Ramban] during this entire period stood with their intellectual efforts entirely within Judaism, and built it up out of its own inner concept [Drachman translation]…. we are left with two generations confronting each other. One of them has inherited an uncomprehended Judaism, as practiced by men from habit, a revered but lifeless mummy which it is afraid to bring back to life. The other, though in part burning with noble enthusiasm for the welfare of the Jews, regards Judaism as bereft of any life and spirit, a relic of an era lone past and buried, and tries to uncover its spirit, but, not finding it, threatens through its well‑meant efforts to sever the last life nerve of Judaism—out of sheer ignorance [Paritzky translation].
===================R’ S. R. Hirsch (Nineteen Letters #18): [the leaders of Orthodoxy] became at first enemies of this philosophical spirit, and later of all specifically intellectual and philosophical pursuits in general. Certain misunderstood utterances [e.g., Bereishis Rabbah 44:1] were taken as weapons with which to repel all higher interpretations of the Talmud . . . The inevitable consequence was, therefore, that since oppression and persecution had robbed Israel of every broad and natural view of world and of life, and Talmud had yielded about all the practical results for life of which it was capable, every mind that felt the desire of independent activity was obliged to forsake the paths of study and research in general open to the human intellect, and to take its recourse to dialectic subtleties and hairsplitting. Only a very few [e.g., R’ Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari and Ramban] during this entire period stood with their intellectual efforts entirely within Judaism, and built it up out of its own inner concept [Drachman translation]…. we are left with two generations confronting each other. One of them has inherited an uncomprehended Judaism, as practiced by men from habit, a revered but lifeless mummy which it is afraid to bring back to life. The other, though in part burning with noble enthusiasm for the welfare of the Jews, regards Judaism as bereft of any life and spirit, a relic of an era lone past and buried, and tries to uncover its spirit, but, not finding it, threatens through its well‑meant efforts to sever the last life nerve of Judaism—out of sheer ignorance [Paritzky translation].
Rambam (Commentary to Sanhedrin 10:1):When a person believes fully and genuinely in all these 13 principles of faith, he is considered part of the Jewish people and it is obligatory to love him, to have mercy on him and to relate to according to all the mitzvos that G‑d has commanded concerning interpersonal relationships of love and brotherhood. Moreover, even if he is a sinner because of lust and lack of self‑control—he will be punished according to his sins—nevertheless he still has Olam HaBah. However, if he questions or doubts any of these principles he is outside the Jewish people and is a denier of the foundation of Judaism. He is labeled a heretic (min, apikorus or cut off at the roots). It is obligatory to hate him and destroy him as its says in Tehilim (139:21) “I hate those who hate G‑d.”
Rav Saadiya Gaon(Emuna v’De’os 5:4): The heretic (kofer) is one who has abandoned the foundation of religion—G‑d. There are three types of abandonment. 1) He worships some other deity such as a statue or image or human being or the sun or the moon… 2) He worships neither another deity nor G‑d. In other words, he worships nothing—not true and not false. … 3) He has doubts about his faith—even though he is thought to be a fully practicing member of the religion. He still prays and supplicates—however his heart is not involved and he doesn’t belief. Such a person a person is a hypocrite in his words and faith. These people are described in Tehilim (78:36–37): “But they flattered Him with their mouth and lied to Him with their tongue. For their heart was not right with Him, Neither were they faithful in His covenant.” Such a person profanes the name of Heaven and is on that level.
====================Maharal(Divrei Nagidim):The person who doesn’t know how to ask a question is not far from being a wicked person. Even though he has not reached the level of causing others to sin by ridiculing their religion. By the fact that he doesn’t have questions at all concerning the commandments, it appears that he has no relationship at all with them. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to answer him by saying that for the sake of these mitzvos G‑d did miracles for me in my redemption from Egypt. This is to arouse his desire to take part in these mitzvos and to understand that they have such great power that they brought about the redemption… If he listens then it is well. If he doesn’t then you, speak to him exactly as you speak to the wicked person. “For me and not for you. If you had been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed.”
Maharal(Avos 2:14): Similarly R’ Eliezer says that one should study diligently in order to answer the heretic…This is referring to the transient thoughts of heresy that pop into a person’s mind… Thus if one learns diligently to be able to answer the heretic than one will not have even transient thoughts of heresy…
For those who aren't aware, Karin Paritzky's translation is the one with R' Joseph Elias's commentary. R' Bernard Drachman's translation is the "classic" one. I'd launch into a shpiel about who R' Drachman was, but I'm afraid today is extra busy.
ReplyDeleteG2G
Asking questions keeps one engaged in the subject. It's not the opposite of certainty, it's the opposite of apathy.
ReplyDelete-micha
micha said...
ReplyDeleteAsking questions keeps one engaged in the subject. It's not the opposite of certainty, it's the opposite of apathy.
================
Isn't that what the Maharal is saying?
Yes, I rephrased the Maharal's point for the sound-bite generation.
ReplyDelete-micha
Does R Hirsh intentionally ignore the vast literature of Kabola and Chassidus?
ReplyDeleteIt is clear from the symbology system Rav Hirsch uses to explain mitzvos in Horeb, Collected Writings III and elsewhere that he was very aware of Qabbalah and was in fact describing it, in a way. What a mequbal would call a metaphysical entity finds its way in his writings as a symbol. Dayan Grunfeld makes this observation in his lengthy introduction to Horeb. Rabbi Breuer writes that notes for Horeb were found in the margin of Rav Hirsch's copy of the Zohar. His "ethical truths" really are one-to-one with the mequbal's (qabbalist's) theosophical ones.
ReplyDeleteBut in 19 Letters (Letter 18), he comes down quite hard on those who are so centered on Qabbalah that they render Judaism an irrational mystical exercise, a "magical mechanism". So it would appear that this approach to Qabbalah is not just pedagogical, being rationalistic because that's what his target audience is ready to accept. Rather, that was his actual opinion of mysticism.
-micha
See Rabbi Norman Lamm's discussion of this Faith and Doubt published in Tradition 1967
ReplyDeletehttp://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:c9ppYqYK0O4J:www.lookstein.org/retrieve.php%3FID%3D-745147+rav+saadia+gaon+and+doubts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14
R'Gil Student's analysis of Faith & Doubt
ReplyDeletehttp://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/06/doubt-as-belief.html
Isn't Divrei Nagidim a forgery by Yudl Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteReuven cannot demand that Shimon believe his statement if Shimon has no way to validate it. HaShem does not demand that man should believe what is outside the realm of human validation. Rather, He demands that we pursue Truth and therefore flee from the Sheker of dogma.
ReplyDeleteThere is a false dischotomy between something being uncertain, and something being provable. Proof is for things I can't test experientially. Therefore, I pick postulates that seem self-evident based on experience, and build a proof from them.
ReplyDeleteAs Sholom Carmy put it: "Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I’d do, except as a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence."
-micha