In regards to the continuing debate in this post - about what Judaism is and whether an academic can read the texts more accurately than the gedolim - I would like to cite the following view of the Chasam Sofer. Clearly not an academic. I would also like to know whether they are saying that the readings of Dr. Marc Shapiro or some other distinguished academic carries or should carry more weight than a traditional gadol such as Rav Moshe Feinstein or the Chazon Ish?
Chasam Sofer(O.C. 1:56): I saw in a sefer that in previous times it was not the practice to say the beracha on the sun… Nevertheless now that the world has adopted the practice according to the rulings of the Gaonim. And also the Rif cites it as well as the Rambam, Rosh and Tur and in addition it was established by the Beis Yosef in Shulchan Aruch – we should not deviate from this practice. In truth I don’t know what the reason is that women are not accustomed to say this beracha also. It is obviously not based on the reason that the Magen Avraham cites in regards to the beracha on the moon - that women don’t say it because they caused the diminution of the moon which is not relevant here. Nevertheless what the practice is that is what it is and therefore what is not normal practice we don’t add it. Nevertheless this bears further study.
חתם סופר (אורח חיים א:נו): וראיתי בס' שכה"ג שמקדם לא נהגו כלל בברכה זו כן משמע בתשו' משאת בנימין, אולי הוא מטעם הנ"ל, ומ"מ אחרי דנהיגי בה עלמא עפ"י הגאונים הנ"ל וגם הרי"ף מייתי להא דאביי בפשיטות ורמב"ם ורא"ש וטור וקבעו הרב"י בש"ע ממנו אין לזוז. ובאמת לא ידעתי מ"ט לא נהגו נשים לברך ברכה זו ג"כ ולא שייך הכא הטעם שכ' [מג"א רסי' תכ"ו] בברכת הירח שהנשים גורמים מיעוט הירח וזה לא שייך הכא, ומ"מ מה דנהיג נהיג ומה דלא נהיג הבו דלא לוסיף עלה, ועדיין צ"ע
Academic study is based on the notion that one can only eliminate personal bias by remaining objective. The material must be held outside the scholar and analyzed as abtsractly as possible.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, Talmud Torah is Torah as seen from the inside. The whole idea is to become one with the knowledge. Da'as means both wisdom and marital intimacy for a reason. You're not supposed to stay objective; you're supposed to change so that your biases match that of the subject matter.
To use your example, Dr Marc Shapiro studies very well what actually happened, and at times confuses that with knowing how we ought to relate to it.
Birkhas haChamah is a good example. It's an approximation. It's based on one of two possible dates for the creation of the sun. In fact, it splits a machloqes -- placing the sun at its youth (dawn) at the time of creation and yet setting creation at the height (spring) of the year. The first matter is decided like R' Eliezer, but the second like R' Yehoshua -- in the same machloqes. It's clearly not about facts, it's about how we relate to them. It's a time that reminds the speaker of maaseh bereishis, even if nothing specific is happening astronomically. Science and halakhah are different things.
-micha
The Chassam Sofer was the first step of the charedi movement, but he was very different from the Gedolim of today. He said explicitly that Rashi and Tosafos made mistakes in anatomy. Let's see how many Gedolim of today are willing to put that in print.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to your question - I don't know enough about Marc Shapiro to comment, but I would definitely say that the average frum senior academic has more credibility on reading a text relating to theology (NOT a ketzos!) that the average charedi Gadol. I don't know why this is a chiddush, surely you must know that the yeshivos don't teach theology, and they don't teach the history of the diversity of approaches in klal yisroel. And regarding Marc Shapiro, didn't you see how he made a fool out of Rav Leff in a recent Jewish Action?
Again, take the example of R. Yaakov Kamenetzky - one of the more broad-minded Gedolim - claiming that Rambam surely must have accepted that magic existed in the times of Tanach, and was merely denying its existence in his day. Any frum academic would see this as being utterly false.
I would like to comment on this with one example. In the Jewish Observer, Rav Chaim Keller, Rosh Yeshivah of Telz, claimed that Rambam did not learn anything in Maase Bereishis non-literally; he merely added extra layers of meaning! He further claims that to explain Rambam otherwise is "unthinkable"! In 800 years of Maimonidean scholarship, I don't think that anyone ever suggested such a thing. All the commentaries on Rambam, and all the arguments surrounding him, understood him as saying that parts of Maase Bereishis were not literal.
ReplyDeleteI could bring many, many more such examples.
- Natan Slifkin
Rabbi Eidensohn, I am more than a little confused as to the relevance of your quotation from the Chassam Sofer.
ReplyDeleteShlomie Wonder said...
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidensohn, I am more than a little confused as to the relevance of your quotation from the Chassam Sofer.
=============
He stated that in the early days berchas hachama wasn't said. Now that it is established being codified in all these works it is obligatory. However women don't say it for some unknown reason - but don't deviate.
An academic would say - we have a clear statement that it is not part of true Judaism. The basis for its obligation is not clear - therefore there is no obligation of saying it. He acknowledges that the logic that requires men should also require women - therefore the academic would say obviously woman are also obligated.
In sum, the Chasam Sofer is much more focused on what is accepted practice now than whether it is inherently justified. He is not as concerned with how the practice started. He starts with the fact that it is a reality and therefore one shouldn't change the practice.
The Zoo Rabbi said...
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on this with one example. In the Jewish Observer, Rav Chaim Keller, Rosh Yeshivah of Telz, claimed that Rambam did not learn anything in Maase Bereishis non-literally; he merely added extra layers of meaning! He further claims that to explain Rambam otherwise is "unthinkable"! In 800 years of Maimonidean scholarship, I don't think that anyone ever suggested such a thing. All the commentaries on Rambam, and all the arguments surrounding him, understood him as saying that parts of Maase Bereishis were not literal.
I could bring many, many more such examples.
=============
No sure what your point is. You acknowledge that Rav Chaim Keller's statement is not in accord with the standard understanding of the Rambam. Thus he is not representative of the gedolim nor is he representative of the academics!
Zitsfleisch, those rabbonim who are beki'im in theology end up reading the texts just like the academics, which is hardly a coincidence. I have in mind people like Rabbi Kapach, Rabbi Shlomo Fisher, Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitz and some others. So it isn't a machlokes between rabbonim and academics but between rabbonim who study the works of the medieval philosphers and those who don't know anything about what Rabbi Slifkin calls the Rationalist Tradition.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, it is interesting to note Gedolim of the recent past, associated with or known for their rejection of the Rationalist school(in the broad sense), who indicate some degree of familiarity(I'm not saying expertise) with the Moreh or similar works.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking of the following:
--Stiepler(preface to Chayie Olam, *recommends* Moreh for yechidim, although the bulk of the preface is in favor of emunah peshutah)
--R Chaim Brisker and R. Chaim Avraham Dov Ber Levine HaCohen("The Malach") had a private study in the Moreh, as indicated in a Mishpacha interview about the Willamsburg "Malachim" group
--R. Elchanon Wasserman in Kovetz Maamorim(letter to R Schwab)
Any others which come to mind ?
I would also like to know whether they are saying that the readings of Dr. Marc Shapiro or some other distinguished academic carries or should carry more weight than a traditional gadol such as Rav Moshe Feinstein or the Chazon Ish?
ReplyDelete=========================
Apples and Oranges - how many times have I heard - it doesn't matter what the author of a statement in the talmud meant, it's how the nameless editor and all the later baalei mesorah understood the statement. If this is normative halachik philosophy, why would you care if R' Shapiro actually were closer to the original intent than the chasam sofer?
KT
Joel Rich
An academic would say - we have a clear statement that it is not part of true Judaism. The basis for its obligation is not clear - therefore there is no obligation of saying it
ReplyDeleteI think you're stereotyping academics.
See http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/23/Birkat-HaHammah-5769 where academic (dundunduh!) Daniel Lasker explores some of the dubious logic surrounding Birkat Hachamah and proceeds to write: "The Hatam Sofer ruled (Responsa, Orah Hayyim 56) that once the great Rabbis of Israel (Maimonides [H. Berakhot 10:18], Yosef Karo [Orah Hayyim 229:2], et al.) had codified the practice of blessing the sun, the matter was closed. It would seem that, indeed, tradition, even illogical tradition, has had a strong hold on Jews; it is this Jewish loyalty to tradition which has maintained us during our long history. And so, let us hope that on this 14th of Nisan/April 8, the skies will be clear, the sun will be bright, and we can once again thank God for making the works of creation!"
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteAn academic would say - we have a clear statement that it is not part of true Judaism. The basis for its obligation is not clear - therefore there is no obligation of saying it
I think you're stereotyping academics.
===============
I thought that we were trying to differentiate the stereotype of the gadol from that of the academic?
I am glad to hear that there is at least one academic who values Jewish customs.
Dr. Eidensohn, when you say "An academic would say there is no obligation of saying it," you inadvertantly insult frum academians.
ReplyDeleteCan an academic's readings carry more weight than a traditional gadol? In what?
Psak din in practical matters? He can certainly show how these halachic rulings are shver, but he's not necessarily qualified to say any rulings are invalid because as Lasker noted, a halachic ruling doesn't have to be rational to be valid. http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/16906/
Certain important aspects of history and how to understand them? Sure, the academic's understanding can trump the gadol's. http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104198 (WELL worth the $2)
Or something else like Jewish philosophy?
ps when I wrote "certain aspects," I wrote that to discern from certain other aspects.
ReplyDeleteThe academic you're trying to make, this stereotypical fellow, probably believes in Higher Biblical Criticism with all its standardly accepted conclusions. That's off limits.
You acknowledge that Rav Chaim Keller's statement is not in accord with the standard understanding of the Rambam. Thus he is not representative of the gedolim nor is he representative of the academics!
ReplyDeleteI think he is representative of the Gedolim. I am not saying that they would all learn Rambam this way, but that many of them would make similar such (re)interpretations. By "Gedolim" I do not mean "Great Torah scholars in the last several centuries." I mean the Roshei Yeshivos labeled as Gedolim in the yeshivah world today who are glorified in the Yated etc.
Likewise with regard to Binyamin's point. We are not discussing people like Rav Shlomo Fisher and Rav Shilat. Of course they have breadth and they are knowledgeable about theology and about different schools of thought. The people under discussion are standard charedi Roshei Yeshivos who are halachists and Talmudists.
I also completely disagree with your assertion that "An academic would say - we have a clear statement that it is not part of true Judaism. The basis for its obligation is not clear - therefore there is no obligation of saying it." As others above has pointed out, this is simply not true. The academic approach has no bearing on what practice should be. There can be all kinds of reasons for a practice which have nothing to do with historical scholarship.
- Natan Slifkin
Birkat HaChammah is a good example. Do we have to accept that the solar year is truly 365.25 days? Or that the creation of the Sun was on the first hour of the fourth day? Or that Creation took place in Nissan? Clearly not. The Mitzva stands nevertheless. The Mitzva gave rise to the drash, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteRefa'el wrote: Birkat HaChammah is a good example. Do we have to accept that the solar year is truly 365.25 days? Or that the creation of the Sun was on the first hour of the fourth day? Or that Creation took place in Nissan? Clearly not. The Mitzva stands nevertheless. The Mitzva gave rise to the drash, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteThe mitzvah was created for the sake of commemorating the creation of the sun. It post-dates the "derash" and is logically consequent to it. The occasion is the return of the sun to its "tequfah" which Abayei says happens every 28 years. To quote:
תנו רבנן הרואה חמה בתקופתה לבנה בגבורתה וכוכבים במסילותם ומזלות כסדרן אומר ברוך עושה בראשית ואימת הוי אמר אביי כל כ"ח שנין והדר מחזור ונפלה תקופת ניסן בשבתאי באורתא דתלת נגהי ארבע:
That's not to say they treated this concept as a fact rather than as a mythos. See my earlier comment about celebrating the creation of the sun at dawn in Nissan is taking inconsistnet sides in the same machloqes. It only works if you understand the idea to be about associations, which need not interleave as consistently as historical facts do.
-micha
I don't think that anyone ever suggested such a thing. All the commentaries on Rambam, and all the arguments surrounding him, understood him as saying that parts of Maase Bereishis were not literal.
ReplyDeleteDepends what you are considering "Ma'aseh Bereishis".
The narrow definition of the six days of creation in the first chapter? Abarbanel on the Moreh says NONE of that is allegory. I didn't see any commentary ON THE MOREH who disagrees.
The narrative of the events in Gan Eden?
That is not strictly "Ma'aseh Bereishis. And the Rambam (with R' Kapach's footnotes) cites midrashim of Chazal for every point of the story which shows none of it is allegory. The commentators over there are assuming it's allegory without any textual basis in the Moreh itself.
FKM, you are very ignorant. Try reading some of the commentaries. Look at R. Kapach, look at Shem Tov, Efodi, Narboni and the rest. See what Ralbag says about Rambam's view. They all understand him not to be taking it literally.
ReplyDeleteDo you expect the Rambam, a very intelligent man, to believe that there was a walking and talking snake who convinced Eve to eat the fruit? Obviously the tree is an allegory for the yetzer hara. Look at all the meforshim. You want us to believe this is to be understood literally. Do you think we are children, like the five year olds who come home and tell mommy about how Adam and Eve were bad, and had to be punished for eating the fruit??
You take one of the most significant chaptes in Torah and reduce it to a fairy tale for children. If this is not a chilul hashem, I don't know what is.
FKM, you are very ignorant. Try reading some of the commentaries.
ReplyDeleteWhy am I ignorant if I already alluded to everything you just told me?
Do you expect the Rambam, a very intelligent man, to believe that there was a walking and talking snake who convinced Eve to eat the fruit?Obviously the tree is an allegory for the yetzer hara.
I expect the Rambam, who was a very clear and fearless thinker to say what he means and mean what he says. He says Navi contains allegory but Chumash does not.
He knew how to say "mashal" when he wanted to and he didn't use it anywhere in Chumash.
I'm not saying the story happened as a child would be told a fairy tale. Obviously there is plenty of room to insert depth and sophistication into the literal story which the classic meforshim have been doing for millennia.
But your line of reasoning is very well suited for reform movements:
Try:
"Do you expect the Rambam, a very intelligent man, to believe that the Torah was actually dictated to Moshe directly from God? Certainly it was only some vague form of Divine inspiration and insight!
Or,
Do you expect the Rambam, a very intelligent man, to believe that That we have to keep all these clearly outdated mitzvos that were only meant to civilize ancient uncivilized societies?"
Etc. etc.
"It post-dates the "derash" and is logically consequent to it."
ReplyDeleteIt post-dates the association of the equinox with the moment of Briat HaChama? Do you know the date of the Drash that the Sun was created in the first hour of day 4?
In my understanding, these dates do not predate the Takana under discussion. Even "Creation in Nissan" seems a drash invented for Birkat HaChama. Creation in Tishrei then follows as the other possibility because it is the other equinox, and became ultimately the more prominent shita because it fits the Baharad system.
"That's not to say they treated this concept as a fact rather than as a mythos."
You are right.
"The mitzvah was created for the sake of commemorating the creation of the sun."
I believe this to be mistaken.
Shlomo
ReplyDeleteThe tree is not the yetzer hara. The snake is the yetzer hara. The tree represents sin.
FKM, how do you account for the fact that you, living 800 years after Rambam, no great Talmid Chacham and with no training in Greek philosophy, are able to ascertain Rambam's meaning so much more accurately than all the meforshim on the Moreh, who were so much closer to the Rambam in every way, as well as more accurately than every single academic? How did all these diverse scholars get it wrong, and you got it right?
ReplyDeleteIt has to post-date a concept that the taqanah itself mentions. So yes, the concept of making a berakhah once every 28 years has to post-date the calculation based on Shemu'el's estimation of a year calculating from a young universe.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Rambam, he clearly speaks of a 6 stage process of unfolding, that these are conceptual stages, not temporal ones. But RDE and FKM had this out already more than once. Here's the results of previous discussion about the Rambam and time during creation. (It's also instructive to look at Rav Dessler on the Ramban and time during creation. Although to me it seems more R' Dessler's than the Ramban's. As well as the Maharal, haqdamah to Gevuros H'. They show that the notion that the "week" of creation wasn't about time as we understand it is quite commonplace.)
As for the way the objection to FKM's point was phrased, may I quote R' Lazer Brody, "It's nice to be smart, but smarter to be nice." It's that, not the details of ma'aseh bereishis, that Yahadus is all about.
-micha
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteDr. Eidensohn, when you say "An academic would say there is no obligation of saying it," you inadvertantly insult frum academians.
Can an academic's readings carry more weight than a traditional gadol? In what?
Psak din in practical matters? He can certainly show how these halachic rulings are shver, but he's not necessarily qualified to say any rulings are invalid because as Lasker noted, a halachic ruling doesn't have to be rational to be valid. http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/16906/
Certain important aspects of history and how to understand them? Sure, the academic's understanding can trump the gadol's. http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104198 (WELL worth the $2)
==================
Let's take the extreme case.Let's assume that the academic's reading is always closer to the original intent of the sources than a gadal. Does it matter? It would seem from Bava Metzia 59a that even if a Bas Kol certifies a view - it doesn't matter. (See Ran and Introduction of Ketzos, as well as Introduction to Igros Moshe on the subject).
Thus for Yiddishkeit the decisive halacha or understanding is made by gadolim and not academics. Whether you want to label this Daas Torah or something else - the understanding of academics is largely irrelevant to religious practices and thought.
Furthermore when Rav Hutner made a statement about the Holocaust - the accuracy of the historical assertions is largely irrelevant. He didn't derive his theology from history books. They are merely used to support his theology.
This insulation against sources outside of the traditional ones seems to be one of the major issues in the Slifkin crises. This goes back at least to the Maharal's attack on the Me'or Ainayim for exactly the same thing. Using outside sources to judge the accuracy of traditonal sources or how they should be understood - is against the rules.
Let's take the extreme case.Let's assume that the academic's reading is always closer to the original intent of the sources than a gadal. Does it matter? It would seem from Bava Metzia 59a that even if a Bas Kol certifies a view - it doesn't matter.... - the understanding of academics is largely irrelevant to religious practices and thought.
ReplyDeleteThose last two words are the all-important ones, and you snuck them in without a source. Of course halachah will be decided by Poskim. But religious thought... that's a different matter.
How did all these diverse scholars get it wrong, and you got it right?
ReplyDeleteBecause I read the text carefully and refrained from reading my own pre-conceived ideas and assumptions into the text.
The facts are facts. The Moreh clearly says Navi has allegory and Chumash does not.
All these "diverse scholars" with a specific (in this case philosophic) background will more easily and unconsciously read their own world-view into the text they are studying.
I'm sure you could provide plenty of examples of that kind of bias from the Chareidi side, right?
So what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
(I suppose you'll kvetch that a philosophic background supposedly protects the scholar from bias whereas a "Torah-Only" background just promotes it. It's really pointless...)
Zitsfleich said...
ReplyDeleteLet's take the extreme case.Let's assume that the academic's reading is always closer to the original intent of the sources than a gadal. Does it matter? It would seem from Bava Metzia 59a that even if a Bas Kol certifies a view - it doesn't matter.... - the understanding of academics is largely irrelevant to religious practices and thought.
Those last two words are the all-important ones, and you snuck them in without a source. Of course halachah will be decided by Poskim. But religious thought... that's a different matter.
====================
Let's say that you find that many of the rishonim felt that it is possible for G-d to have a body.
How would that affect us today? What do we do with the fact that at a certain period in history there were those who rejected kabalah - such as the Rambam?
What if someone read Dr. Shapiro's book and found all the views that significantly differ from contemporary ones - are they usable?
The answer is only if your community thought so. If your community felt they were heresy - citing genuine rishonim is not a defense.
This is where we started regarding Rav Moshe Feinstein's assertion of forgery and heresy.
The answer is only if your community thought so. If your community felt they were heresy - citing genuine rishonim is not a defense.
ReplyDeleteJewish Academia seems to be a community unto itself.
That's perhaps what the Slifkin ban was trying to do: place Rabbi Slifkin's approaches firmly within academic circles-- which the Chareidi society views as a heretical one.
I agree with FKM, with the quibble that I think it was more about chareidim vs Mod-O in general than academics.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, RNK didn't write anything substansively different than what R' Aryeh Carmell and R' Aryeh Kaplan did decades earlier and already gained common currency in MO.
-micha
"This insulation against sources outside of the traditional ones seems to be one of the major issues in the Slifkin crises."
ReplyDelete"Jewish Academia seems to be a community unto itself.
That's perhaps what the Slifkin ban was trying to do: place Rabbi Slifkin's approaches firmly within academic circles-- which the Chareidi society views as a heretical one."
The major issue of the Slifkin affair is to place it within historical context. Here is the timeline as I see it:
1) Haskalah, upheaval of Jewish life, Holocaust and assimilation.
2) Unexpected growth since the Holocaust attributable to Divine intervention, as per Slonimer Rebbe (quoted from Aharon Rose's Azure article):
"We are seeing with our own eyes the most amazing phenomenon of our generation: Suddenly, a generation has arisen and prospered, a generation of Tora and meticulous attention to the commandments. The houses of learning blossom again, and the halls of the Hasidim thrive in all their glory…. And does this not raise the question-who brought all this about? Who has the power to bring forth such a generation… and from what power did such a generation grow? It has no natural explanation, of course, other than God himself, the one and only God."
3) Organized groups which publish and ask "mocking and arrogant questions", as I believe was what was being referred to by R. Mastisyahu Solomon, at the Siyum Hashas.
4) L'sheim Shomayim efforts of Rabbi Slifkin for Torah Judaism, as mentioned by R Aharon Feldman and R. Shalom Kamentesky in letters/e-mails on the subject.
5) Changes in the makeup of both Charedi and Modern Orthodoxy(ie, both groups, as defined in the broad sense, have members moving in different directions)
6) Openness of internet, and two books published in the past two years attacking Orthodoxy on much more basic level than anything RNS wrote.
If it is true that Lakewood Torah growth, paradoxically, exists side by side with (death-throe?) attempts of anti-Orthodox groups, then perhaps whatever was good for the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary should not be totally rejected today either.
This is the meta-historical context, as I see it; I am open to hearing from others. I will also note that it is fortunate that I do not have to make decisions facing Klal Yisrael :)
Thus for Yiddishkeit the decisive halacha or understanding is made by gadolim and not academics. Whether you want to label this Daas Torah or something else - the understanding of academics is largely irrelevant to religious practices and thought.
ReplyDelete"Is Rabbi Hutner's view a form of Ruah Hakodesh? Does it stem from 'a special endowment or capacity to penetrate objective reality, recognize the facts as they really are, [the facts about the Mufti and the Zionists!] and apply the pertinent Halakhic principles.' When Rabbi Hutner, on the basis of his analysis, arrives at the conclusion that the founders of the State of Israel bear part of the guilt for the Mufti's supposed actions must we, as Rabbi Weinberger claims we must, 'demonstrate [our] faith in gedolim and subdue [our] own alleged acumen in behalf of the Godol's judgment of the facts?' Must we?"
I don't think you can expect us to do such a thing (how would we go about doing it in this case specifically?). Similarly, I don't think you can expect us to be mityaiush on other facts. No matter what anybody says, there is no way to say that Rav Hirsch's system was meant by him to be
horaas shaah, the Moreh Nevuchim was written by Rambam, and the world isn't flat.
As for the 13 principles, let's not forget what instigated Dr. Shapiro to write his book! When rabbanim (e.g. Rabbi Yehudah Parnes, Rabbi Moshe Newman, and Rabbi Mordechai Becher...again, not to imply those names are equal)basically write that all poskim forbid reading anything against the 13 principles, is it forbidden to read the mekorot referred to in Dr. Shapiro's volume?
I'm not necessarily so clear on what all of the ultimate boundaries of heresy are in the Jewish community (which is relevant to questions like, "Can Rabbi ____ really be considered Orthodox?") and I am currently timid when it comes to defining boundaries. With that disclaimer and my reservations, I would venture to guess that individual communities do decide standards of heresy but there is not one specific view which must be taken by all of these communities in regards to all sources, philosophies, etc; there is room for divergence for opinon. How much room depends on the community.
Furthermore when Rav Hutner made a statement about the Holocaust - the accuracy of the historical assertions is largely irrelevant. He didn't derive his theology from history books. They are merely used to support his theology.
I'm not 100% sure which statement you're referring to (the one addressed on pp. 2-4 of Dr. Kaplan's essay?), but WADR, I think this is largely irrelevant to the point I was making.
The point I was making is that gadol Rav Hutner was wrong in his historical understanding and academic (dundunduh!) Dr. Kaplan was right. See above ("I don't think...")
This insulation against sources outside of the traditional ones seems to be one of the major issues in the Slifkin crises.
I'm not sure I correctly understand what you mean; please elaborate on exactly what you mean here.
I meant, "No matter what anybody says, there is no way to say that Rav Hirsch's system was meant by him to be horaas shaah, the world is flat, and the Moreh Nevuchim wasn't written by Rambam."
ReplyDeleteBaruch wrote:
ReplyDeleteDT: This insulation against sources outside of the traditional ones seems to be one of the major issues in the Slifkin crises.
I'm not sure I correctly understand what you mean; please elaborate on exactly what you mean here.
=================
I am simply stating that the chareidi world is not interested in outside i.e., academic or scientific criticism of what it says or writes.
R' Slifkin in contrast acknowledges that there is a problem when there is a conflict with the outside sources and then feels a need to resolve it.
Non-chareidim view this as fear of reality while the chareidi says that outside sources are irrelevent so why pay attention to them.
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteI meant, "No matter what anybody says, there is no way to say that Rav Hirsch's system was meant by him to be horaas shaah, the world is flat, and the Moreh Nevuchim wasn't written by Rambam."
==============
Rav Schwab writes that it wasn't until after he studied Hirsch's writings for 20 years did he realize that it not meant as horaas shaah. So I don't know where you get your confidence that it is obvious.
Rav Yaakov Emden said it was simple logic that the Rambam would not write something that contained heresy and the Moreh Nevuchim contained heresy.
Regarding the flat world - it sure looks flat to me.
Rav Schwab writes that it wasn't until after he studied Hirsch's writings for 20 years did he realize that it not meant as horaas shaah. So I don't know where you get your confidence that it is obvious.
ReplyDeleteRav Hirsch himself. It's obvious from all over the place that he didn't mean it as a horaas shaah (I have a collection of quotes from R' Hirsch about TIDE on my pc if you need...it was for a class). This was the point of a man writing an essay refuting a young R' Schwab's points as early as 1935. That young man's name was Jacob Katz. Cf. the quote I brought in the previous Slifkin thread from R' Joseph Breuer in
"The Relevancy of TIDE:"
"Anyone who has but a fleeting insight into the life and work of Rav Hirsch will realize that his Torah im Derech Eretz formula was never intended by him as a Horo'as Sho'oh."
Rav Yaakov Emden said it was simple logic that the Rambam would not write something that contained heresy and the Moreh Nevuchim contained heresy.
Exactly. That's why I brought it up. Because the Rambam did write the Moreh. (But even by Rav Emden, it's not that pashut. See Jacob J. Schachter's essay in the Beerot Yitzhok where he notes passages where R' Emden acknowledges without question that the Rambam is the author of the Moreh. In R' Schachter's words, "There is little doubt that Emden knew full well that Maimonides authored the Guide but yet found it necessary to assert repeatedly the contrary because of what he considered to be the dangers it would effect in the community.")
Regarding the flat world - it sure looks flat to me.
And Charles K. Johnson agreed with you:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
Me, I'll stick with that "unreasonable" and "unintelligent" conclusion that the world is not flat. What can I say, I lack "common sense."
"Rav Schwab writes that it wasn't until after he studied Hirsch's writings for 20 years did he realize that it not meant as horaas shaah. So I don't know where you get your confidence that it is obvious.
ReplyDelete"
While one can say that "truth" is objective, "obviousness" is inherently subjective, even for a big Talmid Chacham like R' Schwab.
I think the story simply illustrates that R' Schwab (at least intially) found the idea of TIDE to be a big kasha and he had to turn over and over the writings of RSRH to finally be convinced that RSRH really meant for TIDE to be lechatchila. OTOH, for those who like the idea of TIDE, reading a Horaas Sha'ah into RSRH's discussion of TIDE comes across as an incredibly patchky teich. This happens all the time in learning.
R Shimon Shwab asked numerous gedolei Litta if he should follow his Frankfurt heritage or learn full time.
ReplyDeleteR' Barukh Ber told him to learn full time, and that TiDE was a horaas sha'ah. It then took RSS 20 years to realize that RBBL's understanding is impossible.
Without that bias... How could anyone still think "hora'as sha'ah" after reading RSRH in 19 Letters talk about a Torah-only existence as a pale imitation of true Judaism imposed on us by ghetto life? Or his beautiful take on Noach's blessing to Yefet and Sheim? Or... other examples far too numerous to mention.
There is no ambiguity -- not unless someone of the Kamenetzer RY told you to look for things that aren't there.
-micha
Daas Torah said:
ReplyDeleteI am simply stating that the chareidi world is not interested in outside i.e., academic or scientific criticism of what it says or writes.
R' Slifkin in contrast acknowledges that there is a problem when there is a conflict with the outside sources and then feels a need to resolve it.
Non-chareidim view this as fear of reality while the chareidi says that outside sources are irrelevant so why pay attention to them.
Very sharp summary!
I would add that even various NON-chareidi gedolim --to various degrees--shared the chareidi rejection of the legitimacy of outside sources to even grant that there was a problem that needs to be solved:
Although Rav Hirsch granted legitimacy to origin sciences and felt they needed a response, academic scholarship deconstructing religious texts was totally rejected and he did not grant validity to the challenges.
Rav Y.B. Solovetchik didn't even grant legitimacy to origin sciences--and "kol shekein" to academic scholarship challenges.
It's hard to make a case that these gedolim had the same "fear of reality" attributed to the chareidim.
Micha wrote: "It has to post-date a concept that the taqanah itself mentions. So yes, the concept of making a berakhah once every 28 years has to post-date the calculation based on Shemu'el's estimation of a year calculating from a young universe."
ReplyDeleteAbaye explains the Braita, which existed before Shmuel. What did the Braita mean if not what Abaye explains? Quite clearly, all concepts of the Takana, and the Takana itself, existed a long time before either Shmuel or Abaye.
Rav Y.B. Solovetchik didn't even grant legitimacy to origin sciences
ReplyDeleteEh? He accepted evolution!
RYBS said he wasn't bothered by the question. I quoted a lecture of his in a text I linked to earlier. He it is: Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the religious man encounters is the problem of evolution and creation. However, this is not the real problem. What actually is irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of a divine image and the idea of man as an intelligent animal in science. Evolution and creation can be reconciled merely by saying that six days is not absolutely so, but is indefinite and may be longer. Maimonides spoke of Creation in terms of phases and the Kabbalah in terms of sefiros, the time of which may be indefinite. However, our conflict is man as a unique being and man as a friend of the animal. Science can never explain how being came into being, for it is out of the realm of science, while the Bible is concerned with the problem of ex nihilo. Aristotle could not accept evolution because he believed in the eternity of forms.
ReplyDeleteTo RYBS, the issue isn't creation, but the collision of worldviews that underlies the question.
As for the underlying source of this intra-O conflict, I think the issue isn't whether we care about external sources as much as the relative weight we give authority vs autonomy. The majority of MO (aside from the RWMO who inhabit much of YU, including R' Herschel Schachter's thought) give more emphasis on autonomy, and thus the person's ability to reason things out for himself. This will include coming to terms with questions that didn't bother earlier generations. The chareidi will be more willing to shelve the question, since he doesn't assume he has the tools to answer as many questions that come his way.
The same question of autonomy underlies the different models of authority: MO follow their own rabbanim, chareidim look to "the gedolim". The chareidi LOR doesn't expect to assume as much autonomy, and keeps himself more tightly linked to his RY and the proclamations of members of the mo'etzes.
About my parenthetic: RWMO consider themselves MO, as would I -- because they "hold by" modernity, TuM, whatever you wish to call it. Yet, their treatment of "the Rav" is clearly identical to yeshivish attitude toward "the gedolim". On Avodah it is common for two MO contributors debating a question to lose sight of the original question and instead argue implications of language (making diyuqim from the lashon) of RYBS -- it's so ingrained that proving something RYBS's position is equivalent to proving it right.
On a totally different note: The beraisa says that we make a berakhah when the sun returns to its position. This then becomes the pragmatic question as to how to approximate that concept. R' Adda bar Ahavah was Rava's talmid muvhaq; Rava calls him "beni". Abayei was Rava's good friend, and certainly knew R' Adda's estimate existed. Still, he affirms that the taqanah was made to Shemu'el's estimate.
Second, Shemu'el was endorsing an estimate that dates back WELL before the tanna'im, before the taqanah of making berakhos (other than birkhas hamazon) altogether! There is no reason to think the taqanah intended a different "close enough".
STILL, the question is the estimate. The statement of the sun returning to its tequfah is in the original taqanah. And in fact, the only part of the original idea of making the berakhah is the astronomical event (what you're calling the "derash"), and if it implied a specific timing as part of the legislation (as opposed to requiring an astronomer/astrologer to proclaim when it happens each time it happens), it's just that -- implied.
The relevant statement tying the berakhah to the creation of the sun on the first hour of day 4 is the original "tanu rabbanan" not Abayei's explanation or application thereof.
(BTW, tequfas Shemu'el is a very rough estimate. It closely (for proper values of "close") estimates the year, but since we're not estimating a year but a duration from maaseh bereishis until today, the total error becomes significant. E.g. The equinox was today, at 7:44am EDT. But Birchas haChamah is nearly 3 weeks away. Nor is the equinox on Wed, although it is within an hour of sunrise.)
-micha
Shlomo M.
ReplyDeletePlease provide a makor that Rav Soloveitchik accepted evolution.
Micha,
ReplyDeletePlease tell me where Rav Schwab wrote the he concluded that Rav Baruch Ber understanding was impossible. I know that Rav Mordechai Schwab remained with that havana until his old age, that TIDE was hora'as sha'ah (as heard from his son).
RYBS acceptance of evolution is seen in The Emergence of Ethical Man. It's also something he said in his shiurim; in fact I heard that R. Triebitz (of Hashkafah Circle fame) is editing transcripts of these shiurim.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you have the right protagonist?
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression the letter was written to R' SHIMHON Schwab. That's the impression one gets from his essay "Eilu vaEilu".
-micha
RYBS acceptance of evolution is seen in The Emergence of Ethical Man.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary.
This is the only quote in this direction:
"Evolution versus creation... does not exactly reflect the crux of the controversy, for the question does not revolve around divine creation and mechanistic evolution as such. We could find a solution of some kind to this controversy."
If you will read THE REST OF THE BOOK you will see numerous and clear references to a very unnatural and unscientific account of man's development due to his moral choices.
You will then see that the "solution of some kind" is quite far from a peaceful merger of Judaism with evolutionary theory that people would have you believe.
It is one thing to say Judaism views man, in part, as a biological entity. That is to say, he has some characteristics that he FULLY shares with animals. This is indeed the scientific view as opposed to the Greek/ Christian view that man is a wholly different sort of creation and in NO WAY animal.
This is indeed a central idea of Rav Soloveitchik in his book.
But you are having Rav Soloveitchik say something about evolution.
This goes one giant step further in saying that once we acknowledge that man has some purely animalistic elements to him, he must have directly inherited those aspects from the animals themselves as the naturalistic view of the world dictates.
This is completely unsubstantiated.
This is, strictly speaking, not a scientific view but a belief in naturalism.
As the rest of the book clearly shows, the Rav did not advocate the co-opting of naturalism into Judaism.
ALL the support to claim in this book about not being in conflict with evolution only points to one particular idea.
That man has CHARACTERISTICS IN COMMON WITH ANIMALS. That's it.
You cannot show me a single sentence in the book that suggests common descent unless you are a priori committed to naturalism and take it as axiomatic that:
if man has some truly animalistic characteristics, he must have gotten them from animals directly.
The Rav worked with no such axiom and explicitly stated that the animalistic components of man are subject to change via his moral choices.
and see here:
http://fkmaniac.blogspot.com/2006/06/rabbi-soloveitchik-on-evolution-mabul.html
Regarding evolution see my recent post
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/rav-solveitchik-evolution-by-rav.html