This despite the fact that there was concern about heresy - the reaction against Mendelsohn is a good example. In fact there were some Chasidim who viewed the Malbim as a maskil. While the Reform viewed him as a fanatic reactionary. The Malbim apparently was trying to produce a frum Biblical criticism much as Rav Yisroel Salanter was trying to produce a frum haskala
Dr. Noah Rosenbloom in his biography of the Malbim notes that there were several books in Hebrew - concerning with science - which were published at this time for the frum world. The Malbim apparently took his information from one of them - Sefer HaBris. The author of Sefer haBris clearly was aware of the dangers of publishing discussions of science and he took the precaution of announcing that the work was merely an introduction to Rav Chaim Vital's Shaar HaKedushah - to explain the scientific basis. Of interest he makes no attempt to actually explain any particular verse. As Dr. Rosenbloom points out - if he really was concerned with clarify and explaining Shaar HaKedusha - he would have written it as a commentary rather than as a introduction. In addition he was careful to obtain many haskomas from important rabbis.
My point being that it is not so much the content but the perceived context that influences whether something is perceived as dangerous literature that needs to be banned.
========================
Malbim (Bereishis 1:1) ... This interpretation [which I just quoted] makes sense according to the view of the ancients who says that there exist Spheres on which are fixed all the stars of the Heavens and therefore when it says that G-d created the Heavens it is referring to the Spheres which were created on the first day. And then the sun and the moon and the stars were created on the fourth day and attached to the Spheres that are referred to as the rakia of the Heavens. However it has recently been established that there are no such things as Spheres. Rather [the scientists] have stated that all the heavenly bodies move in their orbits in an atmosphere which is called Ether which fills the entire universe. Therefore if the stars weren't created then nothing of the heavens was created because there is nothing to the Heavens except the heavenly bodies. Furthermore the scientists have recently established that the stars in the Heavens are not composed of a fifth type of matter which is unique to the Heavens as the ancients claimed. The fact is that the heavenly bodies which only reflect light such as the moon are composed of the exact same materials as we find here on our earth....
There was no web sites in those days to start a tumelt about this issue.
ReplyDeleteIts never too late.
2 centuries ago, the Haredi denomination did not exist as it does today. Perhaps the idea that that every claim made by Hazal about science was not then viewed as sacrosanct. There is also reason to believe that there was greater Kavod for true hachamim on those days, (although he was persecuted by every community he worked with).
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the same question can be asked on Ibn Ezra and even RambaN, on their commentaries to the Torah.
Malbim is quoted above as commenting, "Therefore if the stars weren't created than nothing of the heavens was created because there is nothing to the Heavens except the heavenly bodies."
ReplyDeleteI think the word "than" should be corrected to read *then*.
Also, Malbim is quoted as commenting that "Rather [the scientists] have stated that all the heavenly bodies move in their orbits in an atmosphere which is called Ether which fills the entire universe."
The current Wikipedia article "Aether theories" says, "Aether theories in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether (also spelled ether, from the Greek word (αἰθήρ)...), a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces. The assorted aether theories embody the various conceptions of this 'medium' and 'substance'. This early modern aether has little in common with the aether of classical elements from which the name was borrowed. Since the development of special relativity, theories using a substantial aether are not used any more in modern physics, and are replaced by more abstract models.[2]" (2. Born, Max (1964), *Einstein's Theory of Relativity*, Dover Publications...)
The same Wikipedia article goes on to say, however, that "Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics..., Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
["]It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”[7] (7. Laughlin, Robert B. (2005). *A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down*. NY, NY: Basic Books. pp. 120–121...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#cite_ref-6
" In fact there were some Chasidim who viewed the Malbim as a maskil."
ReplyDeleteIf so, that is more of a comment on the Chassidim than on the Malbim.
"My point being that it is not so much the content but the perceived context that influences whether something is perceived as dangerous literature that needs to be banned. "
In other words, what counts is who says something, not the whether the statement is true or not?
No, it is the intentions of the person saying it that matter.
DeleteThat is the context.
Being a post modernist (like all of are whether we admit it or not) I would go one step further and say that the intent of the reader plays an equal role.
DeleteThe issue is whether a statement is perceived as directed at undermining rabbinic authority and competence. So it is not only who says it but how it is said.
ReplyDeleteRav Yitzchok Berkowitz - formerly of Aish HaTorah - once commented on the uproar about some of Rav Steinsaltz' comments which were strongly attacked by Rav Schach. "The comments are something that might legitimately be made in a private discussion over chulent on Shabbos - but he went and put them in a book."
Similarly Making of a Godol is a collection of statements that Rav Nosson Kaminetseky say are how high level roshei yeshiva and gedolim actually speak about major rabbinic figures. The problem is that once these comments were published in book form they are perceived as slandering these figures rather than simply informing the masses about some interesting stories.
As a well known godol said about the book, "I know even better stories" - but he of course would never publish of these stories.
It is, as far as I can see, an issue of the degree of canonization of texts. As someone who has studied modern chemistry, I can say that there are over 100 fundamental elements, not the 4 elements of earth, wind, fire and water. For Rambam, the Zohar, and perhaps Chazal, the Greek science of the day spoke of 4 elements, and this became enshrined in Religious texts, such as Sefer mada of the MT.
DeleteLet us imagine that in a few hundred years, there will be artificial organs, eg kidneys etc. So a posek who refers back to current Teshuvot, may see our knowledge of today as being archaic, or he might consider today's gedolim as being like Moses, and that he cannot go against their iew, or even suggest that the poskim of 2012 didnt know science better than goyisher scientists of 2212.
The same applies to previous generations.
if rabbinic authority can't handle or can't deal with development in scientific theory, if people have to pretend that what chazal said is correct, always correct, and the laws of physics as we know them are simply wrong, then give it up. because you (second person plural) are pretending. there are day to day application of newtonian physics, used by all of us. are they wrong also?
Deletefurther, not including this type of discussion in a perush on torah won't get anyone very far anyway.
"The comments are something that might legitimately be made in a private discussion over chulent on Shabbos - but he went and put them in a book."
DeleteIsn't this a proof that hypocrisy is a constituent part of the system, if high rabbis think that you cannot publish in books what you can say around the tchulent?
I thought that torah was a quest for truth. So if it is true, why deny it, why hide it, why whisper around shabbes tables instead of publishing books?
@Daas Torah: So a true believer, according to you, has to believe in the spheres, because some hachamim stated they existed, and everyone believing in the heliocentric model is an apikores?
ReplyDeleteSigh! no that was not my point
Deleteso if it is allowed to describe reality as it is (i.e. according to science, not according to religion), what's the problem with the malbim?
DeleteBy now, science found out that many beliefs of earlier times, some of which shared by the leading rabbis of forgone epochs, were wrong!
Therefore, we must accept that the hachamim of the past were not infallible, and, as far as I know, there is no such dogma (of infallibility) in the jewish religion.
so what is the problem?
I will suggest that there is another difference between today's strict Haredi worldview, and that of the gedolim of 200 years ago.
ReplyDeleteseveral true giants in Torah, including R. Yaakov Emden, The Hatam Sofer, and R Moshe Hagiz made explicit or implicit attacks on the authenticity of the Zohar. These rabbis had to battle a) The Sabbatean movement and b) the early Reform movement. One might think that these are two completely separate movements. however, Prof. Scholem has shown that several of the early reform movement founders in Hungary were actually descendants of prominent Sabbateans, who had already committed their heresy. In other words, once the Shabbati Zvi movement "permitted" the forbidden, it was then quite easy to justify this in a new reform movement.
Today the battle against reform is merely symbolic. Whereas Hatam Sofer, Malbim and other great figures could routinely criticism Talmudic versions of science, today a Rav with such views would have his geirim revoked. It is more difficult to prove that MO or RZ are reformist or Sabbateans. Perhaps the fear of losing many followers to these movements is really what is behind the extra strictures.
Your comment is factually incorrect from a historical perspective.
DeleteThe Chasam Sofer et al said no such thing.
DeleteAnd Scholem is a discredited anti-religious zealot.
Dovid, don't know what you are talking about.
DeleteScholem - discredited as an anti religious, or by virtue of the fact that he was not religious was he discredited?
So perhaps Shabbetai Zvi debacle never happened, since it was researched by Scholem ? (Dovid's sevara)
again your are mushing diverse things together as if they are clear cut. Your so called attacks on the Zohar are not questioning the authenticity of the Zohar.
DeleteEddie wrote: The Sabbatean movement and b) the early Reform movement. One might think that these are two completely separate movements. however, Prof. Scholem has shown that several of the early reform movement founders in Hungary were actually descendants of prominent Sabbateans, who had already committed their heresy. In other words, once the Shabbati Zvi movement "permitted" the forbidden, it was then quite easy to justify this in a new reform movement.
=================
I seem to recall that Scholem thesis has been shown to be wrong or rather that the so called evidence he used is not valid. If you have any concrete evidence to justify this thesis - please present. Scholem's theories and claims have not been proven.
who showed scholem to be wrong (about reform and shabbtai zvi)? i know that idel completely disagrees with scholem theories on the origin of kabbalah, but who disagrees with him about shabbtai zvi?
DeleteI was referring to the linkage between Reform and Shabsai Tzvi that he proposed and that Eddie accepts - not to what he said about about Shabsai tzvi
DeleteDT "again your are mushing diverse things together as if they are clear cut. Your so called attacks on the Zohar are not questioning the authenticity of the Zohar."
DeleteSorry DT, it seems you have a rather stretched definition of "authenticity".
R' Berel Wein on Zohar.
http://shearim.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/rabbi-berel-wein-on-authencity-of-zohar.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/rav-moshe-chagiz-concerning-authorship.html
DeleteR Chagiz on authorship, which he denies being R'SH B'Y.
Hence, the claim that the Zohar was written by RSHBY is not authentic.
Eddie you don't understand what R Moshe Chagiz is saying!
DeleteYou are bascially taking Gershom Scholem's position - that in order to be authentic the text we have today must have been dictated by the Rashbi - while Moshe Idel - discusses the nature of an Oral Tradition in a way which is similar to that of R Moshe Chagiz.
Please tell me how you translate this citation from my post that you noted
משנת חכמים (ס' שלד): אף הכי בחבור נורא זה מספר הזוהר אין להסתפק בעיקרן של דברים כהוויתן שיצאו מפי רשב"י וחבריו, ולכן המהרהר אחריו כמהרהר אחר השכינה, אך המסדר עשה התקשרות הדרים כאשר עליו ובאו לידו על נכון כדחזי במאמר שהבאתי לעיל בסעיף שכ"ט
Rabbi Wein's presentation is rather poor and he does not present accurately what Rav Yaakov Emden said. If you look at the language of Rav Yaakov Emden - while he does acknowledge later additions - he does not claim that the ideas expressed in the book was not from the Rashbi. The same with the Chasam Sofer. If you took the trouble of translating accurately Rav Moshe Chagiz - will see where Rabbi Wein erred.
DeleteA number of points:
Delete1) I am not taking a position, I am trying to show there have been opposing views amongst rabbis of previous generations. I didn't mention R Yachye Kafach, since he was more extreme in his views.
2) On the link between Sabbateanism and Refrom/Haskalah, Scholem proposed this idea. A somewhat more frum scholar named Jacob Katz took issues with Scholem. A modern (secular) scholar named Biale , in his biography of Scholem, mentions that R' Emden himself made this link as well!
3) This quote suggests there was an old tradition and that the content of the Zohar is ancient. But, he writes also that chas v'shalom that RASHBI wrote it! So we could perhaps use the term "pseudodepigraphic".
4) You are welcome to disagree with R Wein's interpretation. it is well known that R Emden denied that the majority of the Zohar was not from RASHBI.
5) this is a quote of the Hatam Sofer, although you may not agree with its presentation:
http://parsha.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/chasam-sofers-position-that-zohar-is.html
That there was a causal link from Sabbateanism to Reform was commonly believed by 'Pressburg' rabbanim c.110 years ago, and was believed then to have been the understanding of the Chasam Sofer. I do not know whether this was believed about Reform in general, or only about Reform in the vicinity of their own communities. (I heard this from my father, c.1970, who reported it in the name of his grandfather.)
DeleteIt is taught in yeshivot and by Rabbis that RSHBI had revelations from Elijah the prophet and these were the secret doctrine of the Zohar.
DeleteR Hagiz (whose father taught Nathan of Gaza ) says that this claim is falsehood, but that the ideas ion the book are from old traditions.
If somebody today was to make this statement in a yeshiva, or to orthodox rabbis, the reaction would be pretty similar to the muslim rioters when their Gadol is insulted.
And I have first hand experience of this.
So please do not try to "whitewash" what R Hagiz has said.