I am moving part of it here so it gets the attention it deserves. I picked the comments of Ploni as the starting point. Katche-lab's cogent rebuttal is in the comments section
=====================================
Ploni writes:
Eddie - I think the issue of intellectual dishonesty that seems to bother you IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE. I’ll go as far as to say that you haven’t been vociferous enough in advancing THIS issue.
You write: “not only did the Gra hold that a student can argue with his Rebbe, he can also be right”.
I have some news for you – the source isn’t the Gr”a – it’s the Gemara in סנהדרין ז, among many other places…
אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי עשרה שיושבין בדין קולר תלוי בצואר כולן פשיטא לא צריכא אלא לתלמיד היושב לפני רבו
פרש"י: קולר תלוי. עונשה של הטייה: לתלמיד היושב לפני רבו. ובא דין לפני רבו והוא לא נזקק לדבר. נענש אם שתק והוא מבין ברבו שטועה:
SHULCHAN ARUCH also clearly states the talmid’s obligation:
יו"ד רמ"ב-כ"ב רָאָה רַבּוֹ עוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: לִמַּדְתַּנִי רַבֵּנוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ. הגה: וְאִם רָצָה לַעֲבֹר רַק עַל אִסּוּר דְּרַבָּנָן, אֲפִלּוּ הָכֵי צָרִיךְ לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ. (ת''ה סִימָן מ''ג) . הָרוֹאֶה רַבּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת עַל זֶה, אִם הוּא אִסּוּר דְּאוֹרַיְתָא יַקְשֶׁה לוֹ קֹדֶם הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, וְאִם הוּא אִסּוּר דְּרַבָּנָן, יַנִּיחוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַקְשֶׁה לוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וַדַּאי שֶׁעוֹבֵר, אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת עַל זֶה (תא''ו נָתִיב ב') .
Likewise, SHULCHAN ARUCH also clearly states the Rebbe’s obligation to SUPPLY REASONS for his Psak:
יו"ד רמ"ב-י' יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁכָּתַב שֶׁאָסוּר לְחָכָם לְהַתִּיר דָּבָר (יב) הַתָּמוּהַּ שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לָרַבִּים שֶׁהִתִּיר אֶת הָאָסוּר. באר היטב (יב) התמוה. כתב הש''ך נראה דהיינו דוקא אם מתיר בסתם אבל אם אומר לשואל טעם בדבר ומראה לו פנים או שמביא ראיות מתוך הספר מותר:
But why do I think THESE סעיפים in S”A are SO important; after all, aren’t there unfortunately so many neglected סעיפים in שלחן ערוך???
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT קדמונים UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS ISSUE EFFECTS THE VERY ESSENCE OF JUDAISM…..
I’ll try to iy”h explain why in my next post
Katche - What I think is Eddie's REAL issue, in which he has a strong argument, is THE LACK OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY SO RAMPANT IN OUR CIRCLES. In my last post I mentioned a little bit about the sources stating that TRUTH is of paramount importance in Judaism. Here I want to try to elaborate a bit on WHY:
I think practically every Jew agrees that the core beliefs of our religion are encapsulated in Kria Shema. These are the Pesukim that every Jew says several times every single day … these are the Pasukim that countless Jews have said in the last few moments of their worldly existence, as they stood ready to sacrifice their lives – regardless of whether they were Chareidi or MO .. Sefardi or Ashkenazi …..
What are our intentions supposed to be, when we utter these hallowed words … again and again? Listen to what the רשב"א says in ח"ה ס' נ"ה (while I’m only quoting a small piece, I think the entire תשובה should be required reading for everybody).
In essence, the Rashba seems to advance several startling concepts: a) We are OBLIGATED to engage in what he calls חקירה – which is typically assumed to be one and the same as searching for TRUTH and also the same as INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, b) this חקירה includes השמיעה והלימוד וחיקור היטב אם יש ראיה סותרת ח"ו – searching for contradictions to our beliefs, c) we need to continue to engage in such חקירה until we reach the point of what we might call “moral absolutism” - the OPPOSITE of moral relativism - שהחקירה תביא לדעת שאין עוד זולתו אדון בשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת אין עוד – certitude in our beliefs.
The Rashba doesn’t mince words on WHY this is so important: He says that we are obligated to engage in introspection so as to understand that our religion is not based on habit - מצות אנשים מלומדה שהלימוד שלימדהו והרגילוהו עליו יביאהו להאמין ככה שלא הונח על חקירת דעתו. Our religion is NOT something that contradicts and / or discredits the most intelligent person’s sensibilities - וחכמתו יחויב בהפך. And although it’s not proper to say in our politically correct world of tolerance where everybody is free to believe in anything but nobody has a right to REALLY believe in anything – we stand apart from other religions, which וחכמתו יחויב בהפך כאשר יקרה לרוב האמונות. (An example of PC’ess – the recent decision in the “enlightened” Danish govt. that “animal rights come before religion”. (Just google it for more).
Here’s the Rashba, see it for yourself:
אודות החיוב לחקור - דברי הרשב"א בשו"ת ח"ה ס' נ"ה: ענין פרשת קר"ש... יש לכל בעל דעה לדעת כי היא פרשה מיוחדת לנו כוללת ... יסודות כל הבנין אשר בית ישראל נכון עליהם ... ועוד צריכין אנו להתבונן שאין אמונתו וייחודו מצות אנשים מלומדה שהלימוד שלימדהו והרגילוהו עליו יביאהו להאמין ככה שלא הונח על חקירת דעתו, וחכמתו יחויב בהפך כאשר יקרה לרוב האמונות, רק אנחנו חייבים לשמוע ולחקור אחר השמיעה והחקירה שהחקירה האמיתית תחויב ותכריע על ככה, והוא אומרו שמע ישראל שמלת שמע כולל ג' ענינים ... שמיעת האזן... והושאלה לדעת... והושאלה גם לקבלה והאמונה... וכאן ר"ל ... (ו)אחרי השמיעה והלימוד וחיקור היטב אם יש ראיה סותרת ח"ו, ... תביאנו החקירה ותכריחנו הכרח אמתי לקבל ולהאמין כי הוא יתברך נמצא וכן הוא משגיח על פרטי מעשנו ... שהחקירה תביא לדעת שאין עוד זולתו אדון בשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת אין עוד, ואחר שנדע ונסכים על זה אז באמת ראוי לאהוב אותו בכל לבבנו ובכל נפשנו ובכל מאודנו כי משלו הכל ומשלו נתן לו ... ע"כ.
The Rashba is far from the only one who endorses this stance. I think it’s pretty much universal among Rishonim like the חובת הלבבות (הקדמה, שער עבודת אלקים פ"ג), רבינו בחיי (עה"פ אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבותיך דברים י"ג-ד), רבינו סעדיה גאון באמונת ודעות (הקדמה), etc. It just seems more surprising for the Rashba, when one notes that this is the same Rashba who was in the FOREFRONT of the חרם AGAINST חכמות חיצוניות – see ח"א ס' תי"ג וכו'.
Part 2:
So far, we know that the benefit of this חקירה is “moral absolutism”. Rav Saadya Gaon elaborates on the benefits of the search for TRUTH, when he explains why he wrote his Sefer. He seems to say that besides the obvious “religious” benefits obtained by having the CERTITUDE of truth - namely the necessary confidence while successfully engaging non-believers, grace of G-d, etc. – there are many other potential gains: a) Happiness, b) authenticity, c) heartfelt prayer, d) honest business dealings, e) less envy, jealousy & resentment of others.
Here’s the רב סעדי' גאון, see it for yourself:
(הקדמת הרב סעדי' גאון לספר האמונה והדעות, פרק א-ב): הריני מקדים לספר זה אשר בכוונתי לחברו: הודעת גורמי השיבושים לבני אדם ... ועל דרכי סילוקן ... ויגיע בו דורשו אל הצדק והאמת ... מפני שראיתי ... מי שכבר הגיע אל האמת ויש לו בו ספקות ואינו ברור לו ואינו מחזיק בו, ... ומהם מי שכבר אימת את השווא מתוך דמיון שהוא האמת, והרי הוא מחזיק בשווא ועוזב את הישר, ... ומהם מי [ש]נבוך בתהפוכות כל ימיו ... ותהמה נפשי לאומתנו בני ישראל ... ואין אמודאי שיעלם ממעמקיהם ... וביכולתי ממה שחננני מה שאסמכם בו, וראיתי שחובה עלי לעזרם בכך ... וכאשר ינהג החכם והתלמיד בספר בדרך זו, יוסיף דורש האמת להגיע אל האמת, ויוסר מן המסופק ספקו, ומי שהיה סומך על אחרים באמונתו יהיה מאמין מתוך עיון ותבונה, וייאלם המטעה מהטעאותיו, ויבוש המתנגד העקש, וישמחו הצדיקים והישרים ... ובכך יוכשרו מצפוני בני אדם כברם, ותהיה תפלתם בלב שלם כאשר יהיה להם בלבם דבר המרתיעם מן החטא, והמעוררם אל הנכון, וכמו שאמר החסיד: בלבי צפנתי אמרתך למען לא אחטא לך. ותהיה נאמנותם שלמה במשאם ומתנם, ותמעט קנאתם זה בזה על עניני העולם, ותהיה מגמת פני כולם אל בעל החכמה, ולא יסורו אל זולתו, ויהיה להם לישע ורחמים וטובה ...
I found this to be a REAL eye-opener, since Rav Saadya’s list of benefits seems to point to a solution to many of the major issues that our communities currently suffer from, as his list of benefits is pretty much the diametrical opposite of many of the contemporary “hot button” issues: Depression, anxiety, empty aimless & wasted lives, dishonesty & the resultant Chilul Hashem, envy, jealousy & resentment……
I think that it’s fair to say that the MO crowd can accept the concept of חקירה much more easily than we Chareidim….
Correct me if I’m wrong, Eddie – does this mesh with your condemnation of Chareidim as unthinking and unpractical folks?<
However, this post SUPPORTING what seems to be a positive aspect of the MO lifestyle over that Chareidi one is NOT so simple… (I’m sure you knew this would be coming – after all, I’m biased, right)?<
Eddie wrote:
“I think Saadya, Rambam, and apparently Ibn Ezra take a very rational approach to this - which is simply neglected today”.
This is precisely the subject I’d like to touch on, IY”H beginning from this post.
The issue of חקירה also seems to breed lots of confusion. In our Chareidi circles, being a חקרן is akin to being a “freethinker” – a word usually said in the same breath as some VERY negative terms, such as; Atheists, Secularists, Freethinkers, Rationalists and Humanists.
Is this just one of Chareidiasm’s biases? Or is there any valid reason to attach a negative connotation to the terms חקירה and חקרן?<
Putting aside contemporary Chareidi sensibilities for a minute, the positive exhortation to engage in חקירה and השמיעה והלימוד וחיקור היטב אם יש ראיה סותרת ח"ו raises some important questions of its own….
How could the Rashba obligate חקירה, when even the Rambam, מחבר of the Moreh, etc. writes in הל' ע"ז פ"ב ה"ג that we are PROHIBITED to “bring up” or focus on any thought that could cause us to weaken any of the עיקרי התורה, as he writes:
רמב"ם פ"ג ה"ג: ... שלא יפנה אחר עבודת כוכבים ... ולא עבודת כוכבים בלבד הוא שאסור להפנות אחריה במחשבה אלא כל מחשבה שהוא גורם לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על לבנו ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונמשך אחר הרהורי הלב ... פעמים יתור אחר עבודת כוכבים ופעמים יחשוב ביחוד הבורא שמא הוא שמא אינו. מה למעלה ומה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור. ופעמים בנבואה שמא היא אמת שמא היא אינה. ופעמים בתורה שמא היא מן השמים שמא אינה. ... ועל ענין זה הזהירה תורה ונאמר בה (במדבר טו-לט) ''ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים''. .... כך אמרו חכמים (גמרא ברכות יב-ב) ''אחרי לבבכם זו מינות'' ואחרי עיניכם זו זנות. ולאו זה אע''פ שהוא גורם לאדם לטרדו מן העולם הבא אין בו מלקות:<
So the Rashba - who led the Cherem against חכמות חיצוניות - is telling us to search השמיעה והלימוד וחיקור היטב אם יש ראיה סותרת ח"ו, while the RAMBAM – author of the מורה נבוכים – is telling us כל מחשבה שהוא גורם לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על לבנו.
Huh?????
But even worse – how are we supposed to reach the CERTITUDE that רב סעדיה גאון tells us is so important and beneficial, if we can’t even THINK of the possibility of the different options???
The answer can be found in רב סעדיה גאון –הקדמה, פרק ו', where he himself raises the issue that חז"ל seem to PROHIBIT חקירה, while he is encouraging the same…
Rav Saadya Gaon makes it clear that the חקירה he is endorsing does NOT START with rationality (def: based on or in accordance with reason or logic), and he also explains WHY it CAN NOT.
ואם יאמר הרי גדולי חכמי ישראל הזהירו מזה ... והוא אמרם כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים רתוי לו כאלו לא בא לעולם, מה למטה מה למעלה מה לפנים מה לאחור? נאמר בעזרת הרחמן, כי העיון האמיתי לא יתכן שימנעונו ממנו, והרי בוראנו כבר צוונו עליו עם המסורת האמיתית. כאומרו: ... הלא הבינותם מוסדות הארץ, ואמרו החסידים זה לזה: משפט נבחרה לצו נדעה בינינו מה טוב ... אבל מנעו מלהניח ספרי הנביאים בצד, ולהחזיק במה שייראה לכל אחד ואחד מדעת עצמו, בהעלותו במחשבתו עניני ראשית המקום והזמן ... אבל חוקרים אנו קהל בני ישראל ומעיינים שלא בדרך הזו, והיא אשר אזכירה ואבארה בעזרת הרחמן ... כי מה שאנחנו חוקרים ומעיינים בענייני אמונתנו הוא ... כדי שיתאמת לנו בפועל מה שידענו מפי נביאי ה' בידיעה ... כי ה' יתברך ויתעלה לימדנו כל מה שנחוץ לנו בענייני אמונתנו באמצעות נביאיו ... צונו שנדע אותם העניינים ונשמרם. והודיעם כי כאשר אנו מעיינים וחוקרים, יוציא לנו העיון האמיתי השלם בכל דבר ככל אשר הודיענו בדברי שליחיו, ונתן לנו בטחון שלא יתכן שתהא נגדנו הוכחה מצד המכחישים את דתנו, ולא טענה מצד המפקפקים באמונתנו ... ועל דרך זו ... אנו מעיינים וחוקרים כדי להוציא אל הפועל את אשר הודיענו בוראנו בדרך הודעה.
He doesn’t leave any doubts about the point that חקירה does NOT start with rationality, reason & logic. He repeats it over and over - I think FIVE times - in this piece alone:
א) מנעו מלהניח ספרי הנביאים בצד, ב) שאנחנו חוקרים ומעיינים ... כדי שיתאמת לנו בפועל מה שידענו מפי נביאי ה' בידיעה ... ג) ה' יתברך ויתעלה לימדנו כל מה שנחוץ לנו בענייני אמונתנו באמצעות נביאיו ... ד) יוציא לנו העיון האמיתי השלם בכל דבר ככל אשר הודיענו בדברי שליחיו ... ה) אנו מעיינים וחוקרים כדי להוציא אל הפועל את אשר הודיענו בוראנו בדרך הודעה.
וכשם שיש לכל מלאכה מן המלאכות חלקים אשר אם יחדלו מלעשותם לפני השלמת המלאכה לא תיעשה אותה המלאכה, כגון הזריעה והבניין והאריגה ושאר המלאכות אשר אינן נשלמות אלא בסבלנות עושיהם עד סופם, כך מלאכת החכמה צריך להתחילה מראשיתה, וללכת בה פרק אחרי פרק עד סופה ... שהמעיין החל בדברים רבים מעורבבים, ולא חדל מלנפותם תשעה מתוך עשרה, ואחר כך שמונה מתשעה, ואחר כך שבעה משמונה, עד אשר זוקקו מן הבלבולים והספקות, ונשאר לו הצרוף המוחלט. ואם הפסיק מלעיין כאשר הגיע אל המצב החמישי או הרביעי או איזה שלב שהוא, הרי נסתלקו ממנו מן ספקות בשיעור השלבים אשר הניח מאחריו, ונשאר לו מהן שעור מה שנותר מן השלבים שעודם לפניו.
Therefore, he says, our חקירה ends up only SOMETIMES accurately reflecting truth, and but we often end up making mistakes. 2) Even if we DO eventually reach truth, the process is lengthy, leaving us without proper beliefs until that point in time. 3) Even after reaching truth we can “lose” it, because of a new false belief that pops up.
כי מי שמעיין בצופן זה, אפשר שיכווין אל האמת ואפשר שיטעה. ועד אשר ישיג את האמת הרי הוא ללא אמונה. ואפילו אם יגיע אל האמונה, אין בטחון שלא תעקר ממנו בגלל איזו טעות שתיראה לו ותפסיד לו דעותיו,
Part 5:
Furthermore, Rav Saadya (הקדמה-פ"ז) mentions eight beliefs & behaviors that hold people back from reaching the truth: 1) Admitting to the truth often results in certain obligations, and people don’t like obligations. 2) Foolishness often overwhelms reason. 3) Prurient biases cause us to avoid proper analyzation. 4) People tend to despise properly scrutinizing & deliberating matters. 5) Haughtiness causes people to assume expertise in matters that they don’t have sufficient knowledge about, 6) People are emotionally swayed by heresy that they heard, 7) In the past, they became accustomed to hearing weak arguments to defend faith, so they erroneously believe that stronger arguments don’t exist. 8) Somebody carries hatred towards a certain religious person, and therefore blames the religion.
He also points out that none of these beliefs & behaviors would ever be acceptable in matters pertaining to עוה"ז “worldly matters”.
So what we see now is that the basis for חקירה has to be Torah, because otherwise we’d never “make it” to truth on our own, and even if we do “make it”, we could easily “lose it”.
But this seems to bring up an obvious shortcoming in reaching the stated goal of חקירה – which is certitude. [...]
Part 6:
I see I’ve been badly misunderstood as to my comment about חקירה. I was actually heading in the OPPOSITE direction – my point is that the term חקירה used in the Rishonim is NOT the same as what many people think it is.
חקירה that the Rishonim talk about is NOT meant to be the REASON for why we are ready to put our lives on the line for Judaism. As the חסיד יעבץ writes, the philosophers in the period of the Spanish Inquisition had much less courage than the simple folk.
The חקירה that the Rishonim was meant to ADD CERTITUDE to the belief that we have in Torah, and WHICH PRECEDES it. The Rishonim obligate us to BE SURE about our religious beliefs, THEIR חקירה had this SOLE purpose.
The חובות הלבבות who wrote שער היחוד didn’t believe BECAUSE of שער היחוד, or he’d be contradicting what he himself writes in שער עבודת אלקים that ההערת התוריה MUST come first. The רס"ג and other Rishonim still OBLIGATE us to be עוסק in what THEY CALL חקירה – so that we become DEDICATED & PASSIONATE JEWS.
My point is – Torah and Truth are ONE & THE SAME. The minute we know that something is Torah – it IS true. We have CERTITUDE that our life is meaningful, because we are CERTAIN that we’re working for the Creator of the “whole wide world”. As the רס"ג says – this gives us שמחה, keeps us honest, etc. For the process to work - We MUST BE CERTAIN!
But often we DON’T know if something is Torah, or not, or we CAN’T be certain … what to do?
For this purpose, we need בעלי מסורה to explain Torah, since the Torah’s meanings are often חתום וסתום. The Gedolim of every generation are enlisted. They “give” us CERTAINTY.
However, as mentioned from ס' רמ"ב, these בעלי מסורה DON’T OWN TORAH, unless they follow the “due process” that is necessary for “finding” truth – only THEN are we CERTAIN.
In other words, the Gedolim’s mandate is limited to EXPLAIN Torah, by using the “due process” of how “Torah Truth” is to be found. Once they follow this mandate and we follow them, we are once again certain that our life is meaningful, because we are CERTAIN that we’re working for the Creator of the “whole wide world”.
What happens when our Gedolim DON’T seem to following “due process”?
Furthermore, Rav Saadya (הקדמה-פ"ז) mentions eight beliefs & behaviors that hold people back from reaching the truth: 1) Admitting to the truth often results in certain obligations, and people don’t like obligations. 2) Foolishness often overwhelms reason. 3) Prurient biases cause us to avoid proper analyzation. 4) People tend to despise properly scrutinizing & deliberating matters. 5) Haughtiness causes people to assume expertise in matters that they don’t have sufficient knowledge about, 6) People are emotionally swayed by heresy that they heard, 7) In the past, they became accustomed to hearing weak arguments to defend faith, so they erroneously believe that stronger arguments don’t exist. 8) Somebody carries hatred towards a certain religious person, and therefore blames the religion.
He also points out that none of these beliefs & behaviors would ever be acceptable in matters pertaining to עוה"ז “worldly matters”.
So what we see now is that the basis for חקירה has to be Torah, because otherwise we’d never “make it” to truth on our own, and even if we do “make it”, we could easily “lose it”.
But this seems to bring up an obvious shortcoming in reaching the stated goal of חקירה – which is certitude. [...]
Part 6:
I see I’ve been badly misunderstood as to my comment about חקירה. I was actually heading in the OPPOSITE direction – my point is that the term חקירה used in the Rishonim is NOT the same as what many people think it is.
חקירה that the Rishonim talk about is NOT meant to be the REASON for why we are ready to put our lives on the line for Judaism. As the חסיד יעבץ writes, the philosophers in the period of the Spanish Inquisition had much less courage than the simple folk.
The חקירה that the Rishonim was meant to ADD CERTITUDE to the belief that we have in Torah, and WHICH PRECEDES it. The Rishonim obligate us to BE SURE about our religious beliefs, THEIR חקירה had this SOLE purpose.
The חובות הלבבות who wrote שער היחוד didn’t believe BECAUSE of שער היחוד, or he’d be contradicting what he himself writes in שער עבודת אלקים that ההערת התוריה MUST come first. The רס"ג and other Rishonim still OBLIGATE us to be עוסק in what THEY CALL חקירה – so that we become DEDICATED & PASSIONATE JEWS.
My point is – Torah and Truth are ONE & THE SAME. The minute we know that something is Torah – it IS true. We have CERTITUDE that our life is meaningful, because we are CERTAIN that we’re working for the Creator of the “whole wide world”. As the רס"ג says – this gives us שמחה, keeps us honest, etc. For the process to work - We MUST BE CERTAIN!
But often we DON’T know if something is Torah, or not, or we CAN’T be certain … what to do?
For this purpose, we need בעלי מסורה to explain Torah, since the Torah’s meanings are often חתום וסתום. The Gedolim of every generation are enlisted. They “give” us CERTAINTY.
However, as mentioned from ס' רמ"ב, these בעלי מסורה DON’T OWN TORAH, unless they follow the “due process” that is necessary for “finding” truth – only THEN are we CERTAIN.
In other words, the Gedolim’s mandate is limited to EXPLAIN Torah, by using the “due process” of how “Torah Truth” is to be found. Once they follow this mandate and we follow them, we are once again certain that our life is meaningful, because we are CERTAIN that we’re working for the Creator of the “whole wide world”.
What happens when our Gedolim DON’T seem to following “due process”?
EddieFebruary 20, 2014 at 12:43 AM
ReplyDeletePloni - thank you - i read a few more posts which i missed or were nto up yet, and they are all very interesting.
But you are saying the complete opposite of katche - but that is not my problem. tahnk you very much also for the proofs from the Gemara, and that yes it wasnt the Gra who originated this. But today , if you ask a Rav for his reasoning, you can be called an apikorus.
You see intellectual honesty is the strength to admit also when you are wrong - but also to be adamant when you are right.
What you have done is to show that you understand a thread of thought from teh gemara, all the way down to the gra. I once mentioned a mishna also that teaches we should always accept the truth.
Also, contrary to katche, you seem to understand what rishonim and chazal said. it is no use arguing when someone denies any understanding is possible.
Well done, thank you.
EddieFebruary 20, 2014 at 12:51 AM
ReplyDelete@Ploni But even worse – how are we supposed to reach the CERTITUDE that רב סעדיה גאון tells us is so important and beneficial, if we can’t even THINK of the possibility of the different options???
--------
this is an interesting question, and perhaps it is implicit in Rabad's critique of Rambam on freewill - which began this whole discussion. By the way - it is also in tune with my hypothesis of Rambam being more dogmatic.
In some areas i am not really interested in doinghakirah, eg whether false idols etc may be true - it is a waste of time. I wonder if rambam was implying this, ie in those days there was still taava for idolatry, But then again , today there is atheism etc, which can be a taavah.
interestingly, Ploni, you are now doing what i was alleged to be doing - which is to analyse the shitot of different rishonim. I hope you fare better than i did.
EddieFebruary 20, 2014 at 2:22 AM
ReplyDeletePloni, Ralbag gives an extensive and deep commentary on Mishlei. Mishlei uses the idiom of weights and measures quite a bit. Ralbag interprets this as intellectual honesty, specifically in the domain of Torah.
PloniFebruary 20, 2014 at 5:11 AM
ReplyDeleteEddie - Thank you for the compliments!
"intellectual honesty is the strength to admit also when you are wrong - but also to be adamant when you are right." - 1000% true!
As to katche - I think you're misunderstanding him. I hope to eventually get there, iy"h.
As far as reaching CERTITUDE if we can’t even THINK of the possibility of the different options - and this being in tune with your hypothesis of Rambam being more dogmatic.....
1) We can't be on the side of truth if we don't deal with seeming contradictions to our hypothesis:
The argument that the solution to reaching certitude is to avoid "dogma", and that only the Raavad manages to so is weak on two counts:
1) The Rambam obviously WAS עוסק in חקירה, as anyone who opened his מורה נבוכים knows. How do we resolve the seeming contradiction between what he writes in the Yad in הל' עבודה זרה vs. the whole concept of the Moreh?
2) How could the Rambam in הל' עבודה זרה miss such an obvious problem - How does HE expect certitude when the ability to question is lacking?
In my next post I hope to start laying out what the Rishonim's vision of חקירה entailed.....
Katche-labFebruary 20, 2014 at 7:54 AM
ReplyDeletePart 1
Ploni, you say: "Katche - What I think is Eddie's REAL issue, in which he has a strong argument, is THE LACK OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY SO RAMPANT IN OUR CIRCLES." and "We are OBLIGATED to engage in what he calls חקירה – which is typically assumed to be one and the same as searching for TRUTH and also the same as INTELLECTUAL HONESTY"
Well let me tell you, the entire discussion here is about intellectual honesty.
The Schvontz, when of Chassidishe ilk, will deviate from this honesty by blindly following the 'Head Counselor' of his club, without any consideration whatsoever.
The pseudo-intellectual Kal, of MO persuasion, will 'broadmindedly' be Mezalzel in any Dovor Shebikdusha.
Both of these are done out of 'Negios', meaning a lack of intellectual honesty. Negios is a interpartisan problem. The only difference is style.
But now I will get into the discussion of your point about learning Chakira. Chakira includes all aspects of Torah study, but if you are referring to philosophical Chakira to bring us to Emuna in Acduso Yisborach and some of the other Ikarim, which it seems that you are, I totally disagree with you. I will mention a few points and my final point is from the Rav Sadya Gaon that you cited and the end of your post - Hakdomo, Perek 6. Yes Eddie, if you're reading this, the Satmarer Katche-Lab owns the Sefer Haemunos Vehadaios and is quite capable of reading it and understanding it.
But first this.
Chassidishe Sefarim have strongly advised against Chakira about Yichud Hashem. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/4769 page ס"ד-ס"ו. And the Divrei Chaim Al Hatorah Parshas Lech Lecha writes:
באשר ידוע שגדולי הפילסופים נלכדו ברשת התאוה אחרי התבודדותם כי החומר כרוך בעקבי נפש האדם ועי"ז לשוא חזה נפשם כי לא יכלו לחתור היבשה יסוד האמת כי טח לבותם מהשכיל כי המדות פחיתות ותאוות דימו בנפשם בדמיונות כוזבות נגד האמת
And look at this: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/5459/why-is-shaar-hayichud-of-chovos-halevavos-so-controversial
I bring this only to point your attention to the 3rd answer by Chanoch. He writes: In addition to the issue of whether the philosophical proof of G-d's existence is a proper approach, my own analysis of Sha'ar HaYichud is that the particular philosophical proof he uses is simply incorrect. Some mathematical premises that he relies on were proved incorrect in the 19th century.
So what is he to do now that in his mind the proof is incorrect. So that's why it has been considered By Gedolei Chassidus a not safe way to reach Yedias Hashem. Most people don't really understand these proofs. Many people convince themselves that they do but they can easily be shown that they don't understand. So since for them it's only pseudo-intellectualism anyway, it isn't really what is building their Emuna.
I'm sure , Ploni, that you don't believe that Gedoilim like the Divrei Chaim and The Bnei Yissosschar, whom I quoted, did not value intellectual honesty. So it is obviously possible to achieve this honesty even without this particular pursuit. And The Rasa'g says this clearly....
Part 2
ReplyDeletePloni, I thank you for the source in the Rasa'g and I read it, and this is what he says:
We MAY NOT 'base' our Emuna in all of the correct Torah Beliefs, upon Chakira. Our Emuna MUST come from regular Limud Hatorah and accepting what we learn out of simple Emunah. He says at the end of that Perek that someone who isn't able to understand the Chakira will still not be lacking any Torah Values "תהי' דתו שלמה" (So he certainly won't be lacking intellectual honesty.) But the purpose of the Chakira is 2 fold.
1) To strengthen our clarity in that which we already know from out regular Torah study.
2) To be able to rebut those who make claims which go against the Torah.
And to Eddie who says: "Also, contrary to katche, you seem to understand what rishonim and chazal said. it is no use arguing when someone denies any understanding is possible.", you have misjudged me.
And also says: "Ploni, you are now doing what i was alleged to be doing - which is to analyse the shitot of different rishonim. I hope you fare better than i did. ", you have yet to understand what is disturbing about your analysis, and not about Ploni's. I saw your response to me and it is full of insults and misinterpreting what I say.
Katche-labFebruary 20, 2014 at 8:33 AM
ReplyDeletePart 3
Ploni, let me also briefly address your discussion about a student arguing with a Rebbe.
There is no question about the fact that a student can argue. Anyone who has learned יו"ד סי' רמ"ב (which I have done Beiyun) knows this. See the Rema in סעיף ג. There are rules, however. The Sheilas Yaavetz 'חלק א' סי' ה deals with this at length, and I spent a lot of time studying that Teshuva - It's not bed time reading, so an superficial viewing will not suffice. And as far as arguing on earlier Gedoilim, other rules apply as well. I have touched upon some of this in my earlier response to Eddie. Eddie does not have the slightest clue of what I am saying and what my Hashkofo is. He's too busy ridiculing and insulting me, to understand me.
Derech Tevunot presents a sytem of logical methods to discern which statements of the Talmud are reasonable or agreeable, and which are not. If a layman like myself said something like that off my own back, I would be lynched , before being buried in pig flesh so that i don't get to Olam Haba. the fact that Ramchal says it, however, is something of a game changer. Perhaps Ramchal is not accepted in Chassidic circles , but in the good old Litvish world, i.e. the Gra, he was very highly esteemed.
ReplyDeleteThis teaches us that there is no monopoly on learning , on interpretation or on logical analysis, even of the canonised text of the Oral Law - the Talmud.
This is not a student arguing with a rebe, it is a student discerning and arguing with Chazal, effectively. I am surprised that this Sefer of the Ramchal is not put in Cherem.
If in principle, one can discuss, debate and respectfully argue with the Talmud, then kal v'chomer there is not problem in doing so with a later authority.
Please give the exact quote where the Rambachal says he is providing tools to ascertain "which statements of the Talmud are reasonable or agreeable"? If they are not "reasonable or agreeable" that means he says we can disregard them chas v'shalom.
DeleteIn sum you are asserting a very problematic understanding of what the Ramchal is saying and I seriously question that that is what the Ramchal said or meant
@Eddie I just skimmed through the Feldheim edition - and I saw no statement that the Ramchal claims he is providing a " system of logical methods to discern which statements of the Talmud are reasonable or agreeable, and which are not.]
DeleteWhen I became aware of the great benefit and necessity of this
study, I was moved to compose this small work. Anyone who wants
to approach it seriously will enhance his own learning, and his teach
ing of others. However, he must not minimize the task, for the way of
the uneducated is to view everything simplistically. Read my words
carefully and master every concept, for I have not been lax in
choosing my words with exactness in order to express each point in
the clearest possible way. My intention has been to arrange and
explain the methods of understanding and knowledge in a style that is
brief, yet sufficient. The goal of this method is to recognize truth and
embrace it, and to uncover falsehood and reject it.
The Talmud is like a vast ocean set before us, whose argu
ments are mighty waves, whose laws roll forth rising to the heavens
and plunging to the depths. Through the forward movement of these
strong currents the Truth of Torah is clarified and distilled - this is
called the Holy Way. It is in the Talmud that I have chosen to base my
building, so that my method will be successful and immutable. This
Torah method, then, is the paradigm for all understanding and wisdom.
I will explain in detail the foundations of analytical argument in
the Talmud and principles of its dialectic thought. This will help
anyone who is not already familiar with Talmud study and desires to
embark upon it directly and easily. If he begins his study with the aid
of this little book, he will find the avenues of Talmudic law open to him,
and he will travel along them without needless detour. What might
have taken long hours, great concentration, and hard work to acquire
can be achieved with a minimum of time and effort, for he will be
tremendously aided by an organized method and classification of
ideas. Even someone who is already accustomed to Torah study may
The Ramchal is providing a means of understanding the words of the Talmud and to sharpen ones feel for the arguments put forth in the Talmud. It is not a technique to decide which statements in the Talmud are reasonable or true!
DeleteBottom line Eddie you are creating a controversial statement where none exists or rather you see a controversial statement where none exists. You simply have taken his words totally and grotesquely out of context.
You seem to enjoy stirring up controversy - by making outrageous statements such as your present assertion - but at least make sure that the statement is true.
You should have realized that you were misunderstanding the Ramchal because as you note- if he had actually said such a thing it would be widely rejected and condemned. Instead of realizing this obvious reality - you focused on the fact that here was a controversial statement from a well respected person and it undermined the conventional understanding - - so it must be true.
In fact Eddie it would help the usefulness of these discussion if you would please in the future stick to asking if in fact your readings and conclusions actually are there before you plow on to the outrageous consequences
DeleteDerech Tevunot – the Ways of Reason
Ramchal -
Translation by David Sackton & Chaim Tscholkowsky
Diaspora Yeshiva/Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem : 1994
Haskomos for this Edition:
R' S.Z. Broide, Hebron Rosh yeshiva
R' M. Goldstein Diaspora Rosh yeshiva
R' Chaim P. Scheinberg Rosh Yeshivat Torah Or
Author's (Rmchal's) Introduction p.6 :
“ It is the Talmud that I have chosen to base my building so that my method will be successful and immutable. This Torah method then is the paradigm for all understanding and wisdom”
Chapter one:
“Dialectic investigation is the process of analyzing a statement or idea in order to explain and clarify its truth or falsity........ Finally, the question must be resolved on the side that appears most pleasing to the mind” p.10
“The same is true for every other element of dialectics, for we never judge a statement by its author, but only on its own merit” p.12
Chapter Eight – Acceptance and rejection of ideas
“With absolutely any statement there is a possibility to accept it or to reject it or to remain in doubt about it.” P.112
@DT - I have just posted the precise statemnts, and citations which corroborate my claims. If you wish, I can email you scans pdf of the releevant pages.
DeleteNow, I have to point out several elementary but serious errors made in your statements above, which are aimed at me, but are risible.
1) I just skimmed through the Feldheim edition - and I saw no statement that the Ramchal claims
Yes, you skimmed through the introduction and cherry picked the parts that i wasn't quoting. That does not mean that mean they are not to be found later on in the book. Sloppy work, Professor.
2)Bottom line Eddie you are creating a controversial statement where none exists or rather you see a controversial statement where none exists. You simply have taken his words totally and grotesquely out of context.
The statement is not created by me, it is created by the Author, R' Luzzatto.
I have quoted what he says. check for yourself.
3) "You seem to enjoy stirring up controversy - by making outrageous statements such as your present assertion - but at least make sure that the statement is true. "
Yes, you should make sure the statement is true by reading the book, rather than skimming through what is convenient on your coffee break. Had you studied the book carefully, and seen the correct references, you would not have embarrassed yourself in this tirade.
Regarding outrageous statements, you project the ramchal's own statements onto me. He says that we chose a statement based on its truth or falsehood, and what is pleasing to the mind.
4) "You should have realized that you were misunderstanding the Ramchal because as you note- if he had actually said such a thing it would be widely rejected and condemned."
No, I noted that if I had said it, I would be condemned. Ramchal does say it, on P. 6; 10; 12; 112 of the 1994 Feldheim edition.
To this, it is important to add that you are back-projecting your Har Nof mentality of 2014 to 300 years ago, when super-Gedolim knew how to learn Talmud , and there was not an atmosphere of Hareid intimidation squads for saying what doesn't fit into a Yated editorial. (regarding his Kabbalah and bans, that is another story, and somewhat related to the aftermath of the Sabbatean heresies). The book was not condemned, but it was praised, and still is , by those ho care enough to study it. Furthrmore, the Gra said he would walk to Padua to meet the ramchal if they had lived at the same time.
5) "In fact Eddie it would help the usefulness of these discussion if you would please in the future stick to asking if in fact your readings and conclusions actually are there before you plow on to the outrageous consequences"
This is correct, but you should not selectively quote from a book what is acceptable to you, and then ignore or deny what is not acceptable to you. You are implying that the book, or the author are somehwo "reform" if they actually made these statements, But hedid. So are you suggesting the ramchal is reform?
Eddie your "precise statements" don't support your assertion. What ideas or parts of the Talmud did the Ramchal reject? What parts did he certify as being true?
DeleteLet's keep focused on your assertion
"Derech Tevunot presents a sytem of logical methods to discern which statements of the Talmud are reasonable or agreeable, and which are not. If a layman like myself said something like that off my own back, I would be lynched , before being buried in pig flesh so that i don't get to Olam Haba. the fact that Ramchal says it, however, is something of a game changer"
1) Show me where the Ramchal uses his approach to reject parts of the Talmud or what parts does he certify as being true? There aren't any.
2) Show me any sources that anyone disagrees with the validity of his approach and that if anyone else had written it it would have been burned? There aren't any.
3) Eddie I did see the statements you cited when I was skimming the book - they simply don't mean what you claim they are saying.
4) Eddie your "debater techniques" are cute but they just show that you have not found support for your assertion and thus you attack me for sloppy reading, viewing the Ramchal as Reform etc.
Please read what your assertion about the Ramchal rejecting parts of the Talmud and then notice you haven't found any examples in his book.
You are claiming there are weapons of mass destruction created by the Ramchal - but they are no where to be seen. Perhaps you should consider an alternative explanation - that you simply misunderstood the Ramchal?
DT, your arguments are straw- man arguments. you are asking for examples where the Ramchal rejects statements of the Talmud in this book. Your test of the theory is that if there is no rejection in the book, then he didn't say it the way I interpret him. However, the book in question is teaching logical and analytical methods, to help this process of learning, and also questioning pre-conceived assumptions. So we may understand a statement to be saying X, when actually it says Y, if we use his methods. That is the level of specificity that he goes to. Next, he is talking about dialectics, or rather maaseh-u'matan which is translated as dialectics. If that is the case, then he is using method to determine which side to accept and which to reject.
DeleteThus the statements: - the question must be resolved on the side that appears most pleasing to the mind
for we never judge a statement by its author, but only on its own merit
With absolutely any statement there is a possibility to accept it or to reject it or to remain in doubt about it
The fact that there is a possibility to reject a statement, does not mean we must reject it. If the explanation is good, and using his logical tools enhances our ability to understand them, perhaps we do not reject any. On the other hand, maybe there are reasons to reject some statement, and maybe this means accepting its dialectic opposite.
if you are suggesting I misunderstood these words of the Ramchal, you have not provided an interpretation that does make better sense. If you do not understand them, then you cannot say with certainty that I misunderstand them. perhaps you misunderstand them?
Let me give examples from Rishonim so that I can apply my understanding without trying to make any comments on the Talmud.
DeleteThe RambaN wrote that animals do not have emotions or self awareness, and that the restriction on causing pain is to heighten our sensitivity. However, rambaM, wrote the opposite - he said that animals have very powerful emotions and sensual faculties, and they do feel things.
Now on the face of it, these statements can't both be true. So you could either claim that one spoke of amoeba and lesser organism, while the other spoke of higehr organisms. But since the issur will apply to all animals, such an explanation is nto pleasing to the mind.
So one would need to do a scientific research to see if animals do feel pain and are aware of it. If there is strong empirical evidence in favour it would be reasonable to choose one opinion over the other.
I don't see this as a weapon of mass destruction. There may be handful of comments that can be proven to be "false", Or mayeb none of them are false. But the important thing is that he teaches this method.
@DT - you ask "Show me where the Ramchal uses his approach to reject parts of the Talmud or what parts does he certify as being true?"
DeleteHe does not reject anything - but he says "If the [alternative] text cannot bear such a forced interpretation, then the alternative will not be accepted to remove the difficulty" - p.188.
He is giving rules where an alternative explanation given to resolve a kushya or rumya is not accepted as a solution! This may be pilpul or technical dialectics, but he is giving , as I understand his words - certain methods to ascertain or reject the validity of certain specific statements. He is not saying that if i don't like a statement i can reject it. rather that I have to follow his logical system, and analyse all related statements, intentions etc etc to reach the truth. But he is also doing something else very interesting, and relevant to the last couple of posts. He is proposing a universal system of logic, which he derives from and imposes on to the Talmud, which are applicable for anything else. On P.18 he says "the human mind itself dictates their necessity even without study". His claim is a very large claim about logic, that Talmudic logic is universal.
Sorry Eddie but you are dodging the question. I repeat - you make a very strong assertion regarding the Ramchal - and yet you can find not a single example of where he has done that which you assert he is doing.
DeleteIt is obvious then that he is not asserting that which you claim he is doing. Your example with Rishonim is simply nonsense - because the Ramchal is not doing that. He is not claiming that some parts of the Talmud must be false - chas v'shalom. He is not doing something which is controversial - as in fact you have not shown that anyone has ever viewed what he is doing is controversial.
Why don't you simply acknowledge that you don't know what he is talking about - instead of boldly and confidently making allegations that you can not find a single example to support?
You acknowledge that your mountain is no more than a whimper by saying
"I don't see this as a weapon of mass destruction. There may be handful of comments that can be proven to be "false", Or mayeb none of them are false. But the important thing is that he teaches this method."
If he is doing what you claim than of course many things would be false. In fact everytime there is a dispute in the gemora - you are insisting that one side is false and the Ramchal obviously does not mean that!
@DT - there are 2 ways to answer this - one is to use logical skills, and the other is to use "learning" skills. Whether or not these 2 methods are the same, i do not know.
DeleteSo my first "logical" response is this: You think I am reading him as claiming that some parts of the Talmud are c'v false. That is not what I am actually trying to say. Your litmus test of this, is for me to find a case where he finds a statement to be false. I gave an example where he says a proof is not accepted if it is not convincing. So in that context of the question, that statement is not true. It may be true in another context. The test is also wrong, because he is not answering questions, but showing methods.
The second approach, which probably is more appropriate for out discussion is this: if my reading is incorrect, then you have to provide an alternative reading which is clearer and more pleasing to the mind, so to speak. To say I misunderstand is not sufficient - unless you can show how it should be understood. I am quite happy to accept that i've misunderstood it, but not until someone explains how it should be understood.
Regarding my mountain and whimper - he is teaching a methodology to discern between the truth and falseness of a statement. If there are no false statements in the Talmud - which I gather is the fundamental idea you are emphasizing , that doesn't change what his statement is. he is saying something more sublime. If you check all the statements and use all these logical methods, honestly, you will find each statement of Chazal to be true! In other words, he does not reject statements because he is saying something different, but because he cannot find anything to reject!
Eddie wrote: So my first "logical" response is this: You think I am reading him as claiming that some parts of the Talmud are c'v false. That is not what I am actually trying to say.
DeleteWhile you now claim that is not what you are trying to say - in fact you did say that in your original comment.
"Derech Tevunot presents a sytem of logical methods to discern which statements of the Talmud are reasonable or agreeable, and which are not. If a layman like myself said something like that off my own back, I would be lynched , before being buried in pig flesh so that i don't get to Olam Haba. the fact that Ramchal says it, however, is something of a game changer"
You have totally failed in supporting your assertion and now your response is that if your understanding is wrong I have to provide a better explanation.
Eddie I have no obligation to provide an alternative - it is sufficient to show that your understanding is obviously wrong. The wrongness of your approach is not dependent upon my showing an alternative explanation.
Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that you are obviously mistaken? This pattern of your making bold and controversial assertion which have to be reinterpreted and even then don't fit the text is what I have repeatedly pointed out
Please utter the following words: "My assertions regarding the nature of Derech Tevunos is wrong and I am not sure what the Ramchal is talking about."
"Derech Tevunot presents a sytem of logical methods to discern which statements of the Talmud are reasonable or agreeable, and which are not."
DeleteYour powers of inference are not very well developed. If I devise a test to determine which diamonds in my safe are genuine, and which are fakes, that is not the same as saying that some of the diamonds in the safe are fakes.
Ramchal has devised such a methodology. That doesnt mean he believes some of the diamonds are definitely fakes.
Correct, you have no obligation, but I would welcome one. However, you have not shown that my understanding is wrong. You created a litmus test, but it is measuring the wrong things. In any case, I have quoted several of his statements, and you have been unable to deal with any single one of them.
"This pattern of your making bold and controversial assertion which have to be reinterpreted and even then don't fit the text is what I have repeatedly pointed out"
No, I used a moshul regarding the Rambam, which was not a great moshul. So my choice of moshul or idiom was too colloquial. That doesn't change the evidence that provided to support my claim that in many of their disputes, Raavad takes a more pragmatic and alternative approach. Of all my detractors, not a single person even showed a single counter-example. If you consider the fact that the combined man-years of learning in Yeshiva of all the guys who attacked me on that, compared to my puny learning, would probably be 10,000 to 1. yet nobody was able to provide counter -evidence agasint my hypothesis of the Raavad. I also pointed out that Moshe was on Har Sinai, and was apparently unaware f what was going on at the ground level. that is no c'v shalom an insult to Moshe, it is a sign of his greatness and purity.
Regarding your confession - it is not logical. You have to drop the adversarial approach and focus on the text of his sefer.
In short, in order to show that my diamonds are genuine, i have to devise a test that can discern between genuine and paste. That doesnt mean I have any paste stones.
Eddie you asserted that he has a system for ascertaining the valdity of statements in the Talmud and that only he could get away with it. However he provides not a single statement of a statement in the Talmud which is not valid and you have failed to show that his system invalidates a single line of the Talmud. A system which detects not a single example of an invalid statement is rather worthless.
Deleteyou bring up your citations from his text - but they don't say what you are claiming they said
Your comment about adversial approach is rather ironic considering your claims
About the issue of reverence to Rishonim:
DeleteI think the assumption should be that the Ramchal's worldview is no different than what the ר' יצחק קנפנטן mentions in דרכי התלמוד (he lived in the 1400's and was the Rebbe of the גידולי ראשי ישיבות בזמנו). He writes in
סימן א:
תשים במונח במחשבתך כי כל אחד מהמדברים אחד השואל ואחד המשיב שהם בלעי שכל, ושֵׂכֶל דבריהם בחכמה ובתבונה ובדעת אין בהם נפתל ועקש והכי אמרינן (שבועות דף מח) אטו בפשטני עסיקינן, ולכן יש לך לעיין בכל דבריהם ולראות אם הם דברים של טעם בריאים וחזקים כראי מוצק או אם תפל מבלי מלח ודברים חלושים ואם הם דברים מתקרבין אל השכל או מתרחקים ויש לך להתדל לקרב דבריםה ולתקנם בענין שיהיו נאותים ומתקבלים ומתקרבים אצל השכל ושלא לשאת ולתת עליהם עון אשמה של סברא רעועה או חלושה כי לא נפל מכל דבריהם ארצה כי כלם דברי אלקים חיים ואם רֵק הוא מכם (ירושלמי שבת א"א ה"ז דף יא ועוד) וזהו שאמרו (כתובות דף פו ועוד) מעיקרא מאי סבר.
Eddie,
DeleteYou are cherry picking quotes from the first chapter in which he is discussing the dialectic process. You leave out this important paragraph:
Both these styles are found in the arguments and disputes of the Talmud. For sometimes many rabbis debate one topic, some posing difficulties and the others answering, while at other times the Talmud itself questions and answers as if different rabbis were arguing an issue. At times the Talmud states explicitly, "The same one who asks has given the answer." That is, one who presents a problem resolves it."
He is not saying that some parts of the Gemarra are fictional, he is saying that not every statement is the logical truth or halakha, but rather that the Gemarra is a series of running debates in which Chazal were seeking truth via the dialectic method.
Believe it or not many people, even today do not understand that. Having sat under Rav Sackton for years at diaspora and having learned this sefer and it's sequel with him, his assertion is that if one can truly read the Gemarra the way the Ramchal suggests then one would not "need" the Shulhan Arukh as you would be able to see the halakha plainly on the page.
The Ramchal's sefer is meant as an introduction to the dialectic method so that the reader will hopefully be able to enter the world of the Gemarra and understand what is going on on the page. Not to determine which parts of the Gemarra are reasonable and agreeable but to understand that the Gemarra itself is a dialectic discussion and that not every statement in that discussion is ultimate truth and halakha.
You are horribly misrepresenting the purpose o the Ramchal's sefer to say otherwise Eddie.
Ramatz - did you write this correctly? :
Delete" he is saying that not every statement is the logical truth or halakha, but rather that the Gemarra is a series of running debates in which Chazal were seeking truth via the dialectic method."
and this...
"Not to determine which parts of the Gemarra are reasonable and agreeable but to understand that the Gemarra itself is a dialectic discussion and that not every statement in that discussion is ultimate truth and halakha."
Now, since you sat under R' Sackton and learned this sefer, I have to defer to your knowledge of the sefer. That is obvious.
Firstly, your distinction between the sets of comments of "reasonable and agreeable" and "not ...ultimate truth and halakha" is not becoming of a man of exceptional intelligence such as yourself.
The word agreable is what he himself says in the Sefer. Agreable to our mind or reasoning. Next, even in your false dilemma between these two sets of categories, your second statement is more extreme than the first. There is nothing I said that is contradicted by your statement. Something is not ultimate truth, or even regular truth, and hence we "discard" it. Perhaps the problem is that Truth has a negative corollary of falsehood. Now, that word may be damaging to emunah, when referring to Holy Book.So that is the problem.
A quick example - the comment of Hillel the great that there no Moshiach for Israel. Is that true or false? If you cannot use the word false then use a euphemism. It is not absolute truth, or accepted halacha. It also is not reasonable or in agreement with the mind.
So far, you have not shown that i am misrepresenting the Sefer. You have only confirmed that i am correctly representing it.
@ DT "A system which detects not a single example of an invalid statement is rather worthless."
Deletea) In the book he does not apply the system to every single line of the Talmud. He gives some illustrations to explain some of his ideas. So your comment is rather premature.
b) Validity needs to be looked at within the unit of analysis. If there is a contradiction between 2 statements, and he is trying to ascertain the correct position, which is a valid Talmudic enterprise, then there is a method of reaching one conclusion or another. I don't quite see why you find this difficult to grasp.
Regarding my statement of he being able to say this, but not me, that is quite true, and you are proving it. You are not only attacking me, but you are trying to mysitfy what he actually does say.
Ramatz, who did learn this sefer and its follow up, writes "to understand that the Gemarra itself is a dialectic discussion and that not every statement in that discussion is ultimate truth and halakha."
You have a problem with admitting that - by chosing one statement as being true, this may mean that the one you do not accept may be false, or less true or less valid.
Earlier you suggested 2 possible confessions I could make and the first was more agreable than the second. The first was to change my formulations, into asking whether my understanding is correct rather than asserting that it is correct. That is fine by me. But in the process of doing this, in our discussion, the comments by yourself and by Ramatz are giving more evidence to support that my assertion may be correct.
@ Ramatz "to understand that the Gemarra itself is a dialectic discussion and that not every statement in that discussion is ultimate truth and halakha."
DeleteCherry-picking is when one dleiberately ignores statements that go counter to one's own thesis. I am not convinced that you have shown me to be doing this.
he writes "one judges a difficulty whether it is raised by someone else against a stated thought or the person raises a difficulty against himself in the same way". Ie he says we should not cherry pick, but judge each statement on its merit. I cited the concluding sentence of the same paragraph, to show in a nutshell what his argument is. That isn't cherry picking!
#DT @ Ramatz " his assertion is that if one can truly read the Gemarra the way the Ramchal suggests then one would not "need" the Shulhan Arukh as you would be able to see the halakha plainly on the page."
If i had made such a statement ["one would not "need" the Shulhan Arukh as you would be able to see the halakha plainly on the page."] on my own, I would face great opposition. But it is clear that Ramatz is making this statement about the Ramchal.
Reb Dovid,
ReplyDeleteLemaan Hoemes don't you think you need to update your profile, where you write the words "of the eida chareidis"..?
a crisis, many crises
ReplyDeleteso it's true they don't learn proper english in yeshivot, so that non-native speakers have to correct you...
thank your for the correction. This is not a question of proper English but of typing fast and not checking the result.
DeleteNot every error is a demonstration that religious training is harmful - though some people seem obsessed with that idea.
What is not mentioned is that Chareidism is not so much a religious ideology anymore but a political one. This is important to understand because, as any good Communist knows, once you're a member of the party in good standing you don't have to try so hard to be a good party member.
ReplyDeleteIt would be one trhing to say charedim mistake simple empirical matters of fact, they just lie or turn away. And maybe they do in some areas of history, but in general they acknowledge ordinary common sense empirical facts as much as the next guy. The claim has something to do with reason, whatever that might be, and dogmas, i.e. unprovable by this world experience, and this is quite a different matter. The history of rationalist theology from Saadya's time to our own has been a dismal one. There are no proofs for what we want proved, there is no evidence engaging in medieval philosophy increeases devotion to Judaism.
ReplyDeleteAlvin Plantinga is the foremost practitioner of philosophical theology in our time. New arguments, old arguments given new spins, a gaon in this stuff of the highest order...and at the end of the day once all the articles on his ideas are looked at closely , nothing remains. It is sheer aarogance to believe it can be done one two three.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-alving-plantinga-for-real-alas-it.html
ej
What is obviously permitted and incumbant on all is to be choker in how they fulfill the Torah. People have to use the Torah as a vehicle to decide if they are being told to act in a way convenient to the "gedolim", or in the path of what Hashem really wants from us.
ReplyDeleteDo we follow the Torah because it is the emes or do we follow the emes because it is the Torah? That is the question.
ReplyDeleteI think we follow it because it was given to us on Har Sinai, when Hashem took us out of Egypt, and we had the most perfect navi Moshe to lead us.
DeletePart 6:
ReplyDeleteI see I’ve been badly misunderstood as to my comment about חקירה. I was actually heading in the OPPOSITE direction – my point is that the term חקירה used in the Rishonim is NOT the same as what many people think it is.
חקירה that the Rishonim talk about is NOT meant to be the REASON for why we are ready to put our lives on the line for Judaism. As the חסיד יעבץ writes, the philosophers in the period of the Spanish Inquisition had much less courage than the simple folk.
The חקירה that the Rishonim was meant to ADD CERTITUDE to the belief that we have in Torah, and WHICH PRECEDES it. The Rishonim obligate us to BE SURE about our religious beliefs, THEIR חקירה had this SOLE purpose.
The חובות הלבבות who wrote שער היחוד didn’t believe BECAUSE of שער היחוד, or he’d be contradicting what he himself writes in שער עבודת אלקים that ההערת התוריה MUST come first. The רס"ג and other Rishonim still OBLIGATE us to be עוסק in what THEY CALL חקירה – so that we become DEDICATED & PASSIONATE JEWS.
My point is – Torah and Truth are ONE & THE SAME. The minute we know that something is Torah – it IS true. We have CERTITUDE that our life is meaningful, because we are CERTAIN that we’re working for the Creator of the “whole wide world”. As the רס"ג says – this gives us שמחה, keeps us honest, etc. For the process to work - We MUST BE CERTAIN!
But often we DON’T know if something is Torah, or not, or we CAN’T be certain … what to do?
For this purpose, we need בעלי מסורה to explain Torah, since the Torah’s meanings are often חתום וסתום. The Gedolim of every generation are enlisted. They “give” us CERTAINTY.
However, as mentioned from ס' רמ"ב, these בעלי מסורה DON’T OWN TORAH, unless they follow the “due process” that is necessary for “finding” truth – only THEN are we CERTAIN.
In other words, the Gedolim’s mandate is limited to EXPLAIN Torah, by using the “due process” of how “Torah Truth” is to be found. Once they follow this mandate and we follow them, we are once again certain that our life is meaningful, because we are CERTAIN that we’re working for the Creator of the “whole wide world”.
What happens when our Gedolim DON’T seem to following “due process”?
Part 7:
ReplyDeleteWorse yet, what happens when our Gedolim seem to be actually CONTRADICTING what the Torah states …
Katche wrote:
“the entire discussion here is about intellectual honesty ...Schvontz, ...of Chassidishe ilk, will deviate ... by blindly following the 'Head Counselor' ... the pseudo-intellectual ... of MO persuasion, will 'broadmindedly' be Mezalzel in any Dovor Shebikdusha. Both of these are done out of 'Negios', meaning a lack of intellectual honesty. Negios is an interpartisan problem. The only difference is style”.
I totally agree that נגיעות can be understood to be the thread that ties together the different reasons for intellectual dishonesty - and the eight reasons of the רס"ג in הקדמה פ"ז that I make a synopsis in "part 5" of can be understood as explaining eight "shades" of נגיעות.
And I think that what you write "Negios is an interpartisan problem. The only difference is style" is very important.
Restated differently; I think that anyone that honestly “inspects” the רס"ג’s eight reasons will see that this is NOT an issue with MO or Chareidi communities, but rather a problem WITH THE HUMAN CONDITION.
Take, for example, his Reason #4:
והרביעי מי שקץ בעיון ומיעוט ההתיישבות בעת השמיעה וההתבוננות, ויסתפק במועט ויאמר, כבר עיינתי ולא יצא לי זולת זה, ובו הוא אומר לא יחרך רמיה צידו והון אדם יקר חרוץ, ופירוש רמייה הוא הקץ לא ישיג צרכיו, ואינם יודעים שאם ינהגו בכגון זה בענייני עולמם לא יושגו להם.
What happens when our Gedolim don’t seem to be following #4?
Another point about intellectual honesty.
ReplyDeleteChazal refer to the in depth study of Torah law as Davar Katan, and Maaseh Hamerkovoh as Davar Gadol. We can see in countless places in Sefarim written by Gedoilei Olam, that they don't feel they have the expertise in Maaseh Hamerkava, or any philosophic discussion thereof, including the Chakira we were speaking of, although they don't feel this way about their authority in Halacha. They often use the term 'Ain Li Aisek Benistoros'. I find though that many people who are not capable of getting through a complex Halacha Teshuva, like the Teshuva in Sheilas Yaavetz, which I mentioned earlier, feel quite comfortable speaking in an authoritative tone when it comes to Mofsim Sichliyim about Ikarai Hadas. It seems somewhat paradoxical. They are professors of Davar gadol and they can't handle Davar Katan. But the phenomenon has a simple explanation. The parameters in a Chakira discussion are vague. One who doesn't know or understand anything could say any Boich Sevara and think that he is the Gaon of the century. The study of Halacha, on the other hand, has very clear parameters. One will know right away if he is able to truly follow along in the discussion. It can perhaps be compared to the fact that there are more quacks in the field of psychology than in open heart surgery, or any field of physical medicine, for that matter. So sometimes, more often than not, having intellectual honesty to know one limitations, will deter a person from the Limud of Chakira, which is Amok Amok Mi Yimtzaena and Lav Kol Moicha Savil Da.
I was thinking, Bederech Efshar, to add a dimension in the explanation of what Chazal say about learning Kaballah, that one needs first to be Memaleh Kraiso Beshas Upoiskim. That as long as one has not yet done that, he does not have the yardstick to know whether or not he is indeed following along. Once one has been Memaleh etc then he realizes the depths of Torah and he wont easily deceive himself when studying Muskalos. (You can take this Pshat or leave it.)
See the הקדמה של חובות הלבבות where he talks about זקן ממרא
Deletetake away יחוד and leave the rest - is that something you'd discourage?
הלא תראה, שלא הזכיר בכללם עניין מן העניינים אשר יושגו מצד השכל. כי לא אמר: כשתסתפק בעניין הייחוד איך הוא, או בשמות הבורא ובמידותיו, ובשורש משורשי הדת בעבודת המקום, ובטוח עליו והיכנע לפניו, וייחד המעשה לשמו, ולברר המעשים הטובים מפגעי ההפסד וענייני התשובה מן העבירות, ולירוא ממנו, ולאהבה אותו, ולהתבושש מפניו, ולחשוב עם הנפש בעבור שמו, והדומה לזה ממה שיגיע אליו האדם בדרך השכל וההכרה, שתאמין בהם על ידי חכמי התורה והסמך, ותסמוך על דברי קבלתם בלבד.
ברוך שכוונתי on the פשט of מילא כריסו - I thought the same פשט.
The שך ס' רמו ביוד brings not to learn philosophy altogether - from this ענין. I was going to quote it for Eddie, just didn't get around to it bc of time constrains.
Are you מסכים that passionate יודישקייט needs that all כוחות הנפש should be included?
Did you learn the חובת התלמידם שיח עם ההורים on the subject and how crucial it is when youth are falling away .... like today?
I did אגב learn the שאילת יעבץ a long while back - it wasnt easy, but as i mentioned אין הנידון דומה לראיה.
Ploni, thank you for bringing this:
ReplyDeleteופירוש רמייה הוא הקץ לא ישיג צרכיו, ואינם יודעים שאם ינהגו בכגון זה בענייני עולמם לא יושגו להם.
In my copy the text reads a drop differently, but it means the same thing:
ופירוש רמייה הוא הקץ לא יגיע לחפצו, ולא ידעו כי אם ינהגו בזה בענין תאותם לא תשלם להם.
This is in essence what I said in my most recent post, or quite similar. He says that although you might think that with a bit of Iyun, you already understand it, in worldly (physical, concrete, measurable) things you would obviously not reach your goal that way, so don't think that with Chochma you can.
What do the Rishonim say about balancing the use of שכל with the knowledge of our limitations?
DeleteTwo pieces from the רבינו יונה:
טז-כ: משכיל על דבר ימצא טוב ובוטח בה' אשריו: מי שישכיל על כל דבר שיבקש לעשות ויתבונן בטרם יעשנו אם טוב אם רע, ועל איזה צד וענין יעלה על ידו ... (ו)תזדמן לו תועלת והצלחה פעמים רבות, כי מחסרון ההשגה ועצה יקרה הפסד הרבה פעמים ... "ובוטח בה' אשריו", כשישכיל ויתבונן על מה שיבקש נפשו לעשות אם יסכים לעות בדעתו, בדעתו שאין בדי שכלו להוציא הדבר לפעל אבל כפי שיחפוץ הבורא יתברך יפל דבר ולא ישים השכיל על הדבר רק לצאת ידי חובה והראוי בו כי כן יכשר על האדם שיכשכיל על כל דבר.
Also:
טז-א: לאדם מערכי לב ומה' מענה לשון: כי העניו ישים בלבו תמיד הענין השה, כשאשר יחשב המועצות לא יבטח בעצתו שיזדמן לו לשון מתקן בחשבה שיהי' נשמע ומקֻבל לשומעים כי ידע שזה תלוי בהשי"ת, אף כי לא ישען אל בינתו שתקום ותהי' מחשבתו להגיע אל הפעל.
Part 8:
ReplyDeleteWorse yet – what if in our search for אהבת ה' stumble upon this:
The Rabeinu Yona writes that it is impossible to have trueאהבת ה' without a love of אמת and יושר:
משלי כב-יב: לפי שאין מגיעין אל מדת האהבה הזכה והטהורה ... זולתי מדרך אהבת הדעת והאמת והישר .. ויועיל לך הענין הזה תועלת עצומה כשתגיע לחקר על דרך אהבת הבורא יתברך עדי עד...
Furthermore, the Rabeinu Yona also writes that Tzadikim are PAINED when they see עֹשֶק, רש וגזל משפט and they’re filled with JOY when they see folk doing משפט and being רודף צדק ואמת:
משלי כא-טו: והצדיק ישמח כאשר זולתו עובדים את השי"ת ומרחיקים און ועושים משפט, כי מדת הצדיק להאנח אם עשק רש וגזל משפט יראה במדינה וישמח בעשות העם משפט ורדפם צדק ואמת. ומדת השמחה מתעורר הלב והתפשט הרוח על מצוא חפצו.
And then … what happens when the message we seem to get from our Gedolim is that we are expected to stay SILENT AND MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS in the face of עושק, וגזל משפט and when we are told that to do otherwise is to be מבזה תלמידי חכמים????
Compound the problem if someone belongs in a community where he is all but ostracized for “leaving the fold” … how many people would have the courage to still choose the path of אמת ויושר?
The choices in such communities seem bleak, indeed: Either become numb to injustice or suffer ostracism.
My point is a bit different than a recent post here on DT about the חורבן brought to כלל ישראל by dishonest rabbinic leaders; rather, my point is to note THE EFFECT THAT THIS HAS ON EACH ONE OF US PERSONALLY.
The reason we need to honor תלמידי חכמים is explained in Shaarei Teshuva שער ג' מאמר קמז-קמח:
1) By honoring תלמידי חכמים people look up to them and follow what they have to say.
2) 2) People will want to emulate the תלמידי חכמים and dedicate their lives to Torah שלא לשמה, for the sake of also being honored … and מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה.
3) Some people will be awakened to the benefits of Torah and want to emulate the תלמידי חכמים and dedicate their lives to Torah לשמה.
4) The MOST IMPORTANT REASON – to show that the central focus of life is עבודת ה' AND ONLY עבודת ה'. And the “clincher” is - The “take away” lesson we’re supposed to learn from כבוד תלמידי חכמים is that WE should constantly serve Hashem, just like the תלמידי חכמים do…
What if the message we’re getting – the way we’re expected to emulate תלמיד חכמים is diametrically opposed to what can give us CERTAINTY that we’re following the path of truth?
I'll try to address some of Katche's comments, such as what he writes about "Gedoilei Olam, … don't feel they have the expertise in … any philosophic discussion … including the Chakira we were speaking of"
ReplyDeleteYou're still not getting it.... i mentioned, again and again, that our STARTING point is UNFLAGGING belief in Torah.
EML illustrates the practical application of what we need to do"
"What is obviously permitted and incumbent on all is to be choker in how they fulfill the Torah.".
There are SO many misunderstandings rampant in our community1
Is THAT also חקירה?
בני עולם הבא
Katche:
ReplyDeleteIs THIS חקירה that you’d be afraid of?
The ספר החינוך says that כבישת היצר depends on "אם יעלה על לבו רוח לחשב באותן דעות הרעים יקצר מחשבתו בהם, וישנה לחשב בדרכי התורה האמתיים והטובים. So we need to honestly feel that דרכי התורה are אמיתיים וטובים. Agreed?
This wouldn’t work if we don’t see Hashem as good – true?
The ספר הישר tells us that the mechanism of אהבת ה' works NATURALLY, but ONLY because the “lover” sees מידות טובות in the beloved: (שער ו') is it חקירה to “get rid” of the internal beliefs that hold us back from seeing hashem’s מידות טובות something bad?
כל מי שיאהב לאדם אחד בעבור מידות טובות שיש בו, תהיה האהבה עול על צוארו, ותכניעהו לבקש רצון האהוב, ולא ימצא מנוחה רק בעת יגיעתו בעסק האהוב, ... כי אהבת האוהב לאהובו תהיה בשביל המידות הטובות אשר באהוב, ונפש האוהב גם כן יש לה קצת מידות טובות.
So – is it bad or good to find strength for כבישת היצר by “straightening out” our belief system in יסורין, so that we can ALWAYS see Hashem as GOOD, and find a reason to withstand נסיונות?
Ploni, In connection to your question regarding the Chocos Halvavos in the Hakdama, about Zaken Mamre:
DeleteHe is not speaking about Zaken Mamre, from which you might be Medayek that not to obey in these areas is ok because our Chakira comes first, and that would be contrary to the Rasa"g. But no, he is not saying that. He is trying to show that Mitzvos which are Chovos Halvavos need to be studied and understood with the Sechel. So he is saying here that the Posuk is Mashma that these things mentioned are matters of Kabalah from Rebbe only, and not to be understood by the Sechel, so he shows that the entire list he mentions, which are Chovos Halvavos, are not included in this Klal, but this list IS to be Nechkar by the Sechel. But he clearly is in agreement with the Rasa"g as he says אחר שתעמוד עליו מצד הקבלה
In connection to what you asked from the Chinuch and the Sefer Hayashar:
Let me clarify something. There is a basic misunderstanding about Mitzvos which are Chovos Halvavos. Our job is not to be there, but to do what it takes to get there; to get onto path that leads there. When the Gemara talks about Lo Sikom and Lo Sitor, id does not say simply, don't feel the hatred, but rather, don't respond by not lending in retaliation, or by lending but while giving a clear message of hatred. If we follow this, it will lead us closer to the Middah of not feeling the hatred. The same with Ahavas Hashem. The Mitzva is to do what it takes to bring you feel the Ahava. So the Ramba"m in Sefer Hamitzvos says that the Kiyum of this Mitzva is Hisboninus. So when we do this Hisboninus, we are not analyzing whether or not, or to what extent we are Mechuyav to do this Mitzva. That we already blindly accept Mitzad Hakabala, and we know Mitzad Hakabalh that Hashem is endlessly and infinitely lovable. But this Hisboninus is the actualk Kiyum Hamitzva to do all that we can to bring us to feel more and more that which we already know is true.
Also this Chakira is not(necessarily) philosophical. It is by thinking about all of the wonderful, marvelous and kind deeds of Hashem. There is nothing controversial about such Chakira.
And yes, we should use all of our Kochos Hanefesh in our Yiddishkeit. With the acceptable, safe and appropriate approaches.
" from which you might be Medayek that not to obey in these areas is ok because our Chakira comes first"
DeleteOf course not - and neither did I mean that either.
Katche - In our circles the Rebbes don't expressly TELL us to do wrong, it's just that that there are certain priorities vs. other areas that are at the least not prioritized and in some cases even despised.
These things need not ONLY to be נחקר מצד השכל but the idea is to actually reach אהבה ה' ויראת ה'. The details are definitely not self-obvious, the goals are universally agreed, but the necessary לימוד למעשה is rarely a priority.
"but to do what it takes to get there; to get onto path that leads there.".
Definitely - But what you're saying in the rest of your post - doesn't seem to match the Rishonim. You seem to be taking the אדם נפעל לפי פעולותיו from the Sefer החינוך. I'm always surprised that people don't notice that the חינוך mainly works FROM THOUGHT TO ACTION. As he mentions in הקדמה, מצות כל שאור וכל דבש - he wrote טעמי המצוות so as to give his children חשק in doing מצוות, so that they should feel that דברי תורה have a תועלת... so he searches for reasons..
More accurately, I think, that to get to אהבת ה' we need to listen to the חובת הלבבות in שער אהבת ה' in פרק ג': שני ייחודי הלבבות, ושתי כניעות, ושני חשבונות, ושתי בחינות
But more importantly, it's clear that sincere work on the הקדמות, looking for the תכלית הנרצה, would lead from one thought to another ... to another...
For example: aiming for אהבת ה', which is the tremendous antidote to the יצה"ר, most of us give up on אהבה because we tried and it didn't work. how much better if we knew - like you said - that the work is, for example, on the precursor of הכנעה?
Going a step further - WHAT is הכנעה. Until we learn שער הכניעה we would possibly connect הכנעה to the opposite of ויגבה לבו בדרכי ה', and that would weaken our resolve.
We also wouldn't understand WHICH thoughts bring real הכנעה (such as the recognition of חסדי השם (which is the message of שער הבחינה).
But going even further - we wouldn't feel חסדי השם if we're going through difficulties. So we need to understand the תכלית היסורין like in שער הבטחון or the רן בדרשות דרוש י - that the purpose is (among other things) הכנעת החומר and התגברות השכל
But even after learning the תכלית היסורין we'd be upset if we see no benefit in התגברות השכל, unless that brings us to the הכרה of טוב מידותיו של הקב"ה which are only properly felt when we're מחשיב אמת which sees the קשר to הקבה as worth the צער we're going through...
So my point is that
"we are not analyzing whether or not, or to what extent we are Mechuyav to do this Mitzva. That we already blindly accept Mitzad Hakabala, and we know Mitzad Hakabalh that Hashem is endlessly and infinitely lovable"
Delete100%.
Even more - if we see the ספר הישר לר"ת סוף שער א', דרשות הרן הנ"א - we're aware that אהבת ה' is natural מצד הנשמה which strives to connect to its source, but our job is to be מסיר המניעות. So we all DO have it inside us.
But we're also searching בנגעי לבבינו to see what's holding us back.
like the ח"ה says :
למדו הרע תחלה להיבדל ממנו, ואחר כך למדו הטוב ועשוהו.
כמו שאמר הכתוב (ירמיה ד) נירו לכם ניר ואל תזרעו אל קוצים.
and:
וכל אדם אויבו בין צלעיו, אלא אם יהיה לו עזר מאלוהיו, ומוכיח מזומן לנפשו
And we're learning - how can we learn and teach those close to us to be מחשיב the אמת like the רבינו יונה משלי ג-ג:
"קשרם על גרגרותיך", תדבר על מדות האלה [פי': מידת החסד והאמת] תמיד והיא תפארתך כענקים על הגרון, והזכיר [שלמה] ע"ה לדבר תמיד במדות הנכבדות, כי ההגיון בהם יזכיר לנפשו להזהר בהם, ויועיל לשומעים כי ילמדו מדבריו דרך החיים, אף כי בדברו בשבח המדה יתהדרו האוחזים בה בעיני השומעים, ובדברו בגנות [הפכם] יתגנו המעשים ההם בעיני שומעיהם, וגם האוחזים בהם יהיו לחרפה ויבדל העם מהם, גם הדבור בשבח המדות הטובות ובגנות הפכם תמיד תהי' לעדה על המדבר כי פיו ולבו שוים
There's so much potential for good - and so many good people ... so why are the עצות of the ראשונים neglected???
.
"It is by thinking about all of the wonderful, marvelous and kind deeds of Hashem."
DeleteAnd what about when a person feels he desrves more ... although he's ashamed to say so because he knows its wrong?
Doesn't he need ההקדמות הנ"ל?
Even more - Imagine how much can be be gained if someone knew that the popular adage that first comes אהבה תתאה and only afterwards אהבה עילאה is not true (it only talks about a קנין בנפשו), because the Toldos is משמע that what someone loses all purpose in life דוקא אהבה עילאה can work - because it require nothing in return?
Ploni,
DeleteI thank you for this discussion, as I think that I(and probably others too) have gained by it, and I thank you for all of the sources you brought. I also thank Eddie who was Me'orer this discussion, Megalgelin Zechus Al Yedai Zakai. And of course, Rabbi Eidenson.
As a Siyum of this discussion, where you have made a call for Hisbonenus and Limud of Sifrei Yirah, which is really the main message intended by Chassidus, I find it an appropriate time, on the Yahrzeit of The Rebbe Reb Meilech, to quote what he says in Hanhagas Ha'adam:
ויעסוק באימה וביראה באיזו ספרי מוסר בכל יום בראשית חכמה ושל"ה וחובת הלבבות
Katche - Likewise, I also want to thank you - I truly enjoyed the discussion.
DeleteWouldn't it be nice to have a group having such discussions on an ongoing basis?
And Lekovod the Rebbe Ren Maylech's Yuhrzeit ...
Deleteזאל ער זיין א מליץ יושר פאר גאנץ כלל ישראל!
Chareidi... MO...... אלע!!
Amen
Delete(If you're still looking here, and also if you're not)
Ploni, What you are saying here, is sadly, true. The behaviors of the Rabbonim have created a Chilul Hashem R"L and a Situatuon of Oy Lo Lemi Shlomdo Torah. And also as Rashi says Devarim 4,9, But not Davke Mitoch Shikcha but for any reason if we don't follow the Torah we lose our status as Chachomim.
ReplyDeleteIt is also very important for us to aware of this, so that we can in fact be on guard not to blindly trust and follow, but to use our own minds and initiative, as I discussed earlier about story number 2.
But..
If this becomes a reason/excuse to step out of line, to lose our respect for the Torah and Chachmei Emes, or to loosen up in the slightest way of our Kiyum Hatorah, then it is nothing but a cop-out. Yes, the situation as dire and sad as it is, has created great difficulty and Nesyonos for us, but that's obviously what Hashem wants from us in this generation. The WW2 survivors had to hold on and not lose their Emunah, that was their Nesoyon. I am not Ch'V judging anyone, but the actions MUST still be judged, and the right path much be chosen and striven for.
The Ramchal says that our relentless Emunah in the face of the Orech Hagolus is what will eventually lead to Hashem's divine revelation and the Geila Sheleimo Bebias Moshiach Tzidkaini BB"A. .
Katche - I'm not looking to vent, and not only am I not looking C"V to find an excuse to lose respect for Chachmei Emes - I'm not looking to "punish" the rest of 'em either.
Delete. My main point is that there's so much to do. People that give up on any meaningful yiddishkeit need to know that they never read the manual - as in learning the עצות of the Rishonim.
Also: that those that really DO want should have a proper forum to be מקיים what it says סוף מלאכי:
אֲמַרְתֶּם שָׁוְא עֲבֹד אֱלֹהִים וּמַה בֶּצַע כִּי שָׁמַרְנוּ מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ וְכִי הָלַכְנוּ קְדֹרַנִּית מִפְּנֵי ה' צְבָאוֹת: וְעַתָּה אֲנַחְנוּ מְאַשְּׁרִים זֵדִים גַּם נִבְנוּ עֹשֵׂי רִשְׁעָה גַּם בָּחֲנוּ אֱלֹהִים וַיִּמָּלֵטוּ:
אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי ה' אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב ה' וַיִּשְׁמָע
And the רד"ק there:
כשישמעו יראי ה' הדברים מהאנשים האלה הכופרים בהשגחת הקל בתחתונים, נדברו הם איש אל רעהו ומרבים בדברים האלה, ונושאים ונותנים בהם עד שימצאו בשכלם כי כל דרכיו משפט קל אמונה ואין עול.
Sם we need to worry about: a) The adults that are searching & they want and don't know how, 2) the adults that may not be searching, but have hit "rock bottom" and are open to a transformation, 3) teaching our children who aren't yet נשרש in bad habits, what and how to not just do but also think, 4) find מלמדים יראי ה' that are באהאווענט in these things - so that THEY teach the next generation ארחות חיים.
DeletePreviously i argued that the hasagot of Raavad on the Rambam are often pragmatic, and i brought 4 examples. here are a couple more:
ReplyDeleteIn Hilchot mamrim, Ch1, Rambam writes that a BD cannot uproot a gezeiro of a previous BD unless it is greater in number and in wisdom. NO, says the Rabad - and he gives an example of R' Yochanan Ben Zakkai who cancelled a gezeira of a rpeviious generation [who was greater in wisdom] because the reason for it no longer applied. This is actually doubly pragmatic, since a) the rambam's view locks all of halacha until we have wiser sages than Chazal, and b) in any case when the reason no longer applies , there is room to uproot a gezeira [Hameiri was even more pragmatic than Rabad - saying they automatically disappear].
Second: Rambam says the Torah is perfect - temimah - and hence any additions violate the Torah issur of lo tosifu. There are some conditions to this, ie as long as we recognize them as Rabbinic. Rabad does not accept this risk of lo tosifu - and he allows any rabbinic addition, without violating the Torah. As I have claimed, Rabad is looking at the consequences and practical implications, whereas Rambam is arguing in absolutes and pure theological frameworks. The implications of Rambam's thought if taken to its logical extreme, is essentially that all d'rabbanan is bal tosif, whatever you call it!
This is a most interesting essay on the topic:
http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=839