Internalization of Values :The bigger the extrinsic sacrifice the smaller the emotional commitment

Allan Katz  [...]  The Telze Rabbi – Rav Elya Meier Bloch has a deeper explanation. He says there are 2 elements involved in bringing the sacrifice and offering – the monetary expense involved in bringing the offering and the emotional and spiritual effort involved in offering and dedicating one's soul to becoming one with God. The wealthy person feels emotionally   uplifted   because he has spent a lot of money on spirituality and that leaves little space for real work of dedicating one's soul. The poor man feels that his meal offering of flour does not count for much so all he has to give is his soul. It seems that the ' external ' elements of the offering  get in the way or make it more difficult for a person to focus on what God really wants – for man to dedicate his soul to Him , and in so doing reconnect with God and atone for his sins.  Rav Elya Meier Bloch is saying that the bigger the extrinsic / monetary sacrifice, the smaller the emotional commitment and investment.  Instead of reinforcing the spiritual and internal part of a person, the external and physical element undermines the internal and spiritual.

S.D.T – Self  Determination theory of human motivation shows how extrinsic motivation can often get in the way of intrinsic motivation, internalization and commitment to values. We know that one should not reprimand a kid using anger in order to show how serious the offence was, as the only message the kid comes away is you are angry - you have an anger problem – and that gets in the way of a kid reflecting on what he did. The focus is on the parent or teacher.  The same goes for punishment – instead of it reinforcing the severity of the offence and encouraging the kid to feel sorry for what he did and empathize with a kid he hurt, he now feels sorry for himself. The focus is no longer on what he did, but on the punishment, how unfair the adult is and his mistake of getting caught. 

 

Bribes and threats can be very effective at getting ' behaviors ' but not at helping kids internalize and make a commitment to values. An experiment tested this with kindergarten kids. 2 groups were told by their teacher not to play with toys while she was out of the room. One group's compliance was   reinforced   with   a   threat of punishment.  Both groups did not play with the toys when the teacher was not in the room.  However, the kids who did not get the threat of punishment internalized much better the teacher's disapproval of them playing with the toys than the kids who received a threat of punishment. Interventions may be effective, but we need to ask – effective at what ?[...]

A prenup undermines a marriage before it has even begun

Spectator by Melanie McDonagh

A friend of mine, quite a distinguished lawyer, takes the view that marriage ceased to make sense after no-fault divorces came in. What, he says sternly, is the point of a contract when there’s no sanction if you break it? Well, quite.

But if no-fault divorce pretty well invalidates marriage after the event, prenups do quite a good job of undermining it beforehand. The point of marriage is that it’s meant to be a lifetime affair – the hint being in the ‘til death do us part’ bit – and the point of prenups is that they make provision for the thing ending before it even gets underway. You’re putting your assets out of the reach of the spouse before you’ve got round to endowing her with all your worldly goods, if the Anglican service is your bag. [...]

So far as the case against it goes, I can’t myself improve on the remarks of the Bishop of Shrewsbury last week,[...]

‘Our society would be proposing to couples seeking marriage that they prepare their own divorce settlement before making the life-long promises of marriage. 
‘It is a legal provision which would surely empty the words of the marriage promise “for better for worse… to love and to cherish till death do we part” of all meaning.

‘Pre-nuptial agreements would render these promises provisional by the legal preparations which anticipate divorce.

‘We must ask ourselves, what message does this send to couples considering marriage? What message does this send to the young at a moment when the institution of marriage stands at such a historically, low ebb.’

Mass Hareidi Rally ‘Like a Purim Play’

Arutz 7   Finance Minister Yair Lapid, whose Yesh Atid party is pushing for hareidi men to be required to enlist in the IDF, “is the best thing that has ever happened to the hareidi community,” MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud) declared Sunday in a post to his Facebook page.

Feiglin has previously criticized Lapid over his insistence that hareidi men join the army. He clarified that he still believes Lapid is wrong.

“As I wrote here before, [hareidi MK] Yisrael Eichler did more for Israel’s security than Yair Lapid… Some other time, I’ll prove that Yisrael Eichler is better for Israel’s economy than Yair Lapid, too,” he wrote.

“But still, Yair Lapid is the best thing that has happened to the hareidi community,” he wrote.

“Because even though the whole story of ‘equal burden of service’ is the spin of the century, Lapid is right about one very important thing. The hareidi way of life in Israel must change,” he declared.

Specifically, he continued, the lifestyle which sees many hareidi men study Torah full-time for many years. “There’s no such thing as everyone being able to learn Torah all day, just because you put them in black clothes,” he argued. “80-90% of people cannot sit and learn all day.”

“That means that if you force them to sit there, their potential is wasted, and they rot,” he warned. [...]

Hareidi protest a ‘Purim shpiel’
Feiglin also spoke about the major hareidi protest planned for Sunday. The protest just emphasizes how “everyone involved is saying and doing the opposite of what they really think,” he said.

“The last thing that Lapid wants is for hareidi men to flood the army. But the system of ‘screw them over’ and win votes is working wonderfully for him,” he charged.

“The last thing the army wants is the hareidi community – the military is already carrying the weight of the roughly 50% of soldiers who aren’t needed,” he argued. “More enlisted soldiers, with special needs regarding kosher food and gender segregation – who needs it? But the Chief of Staff will never say that publicly.”[...]

“Just like a real Purim ball,” he wrote. “Each person arrives with a mask that is the inverse of reality.”

Schlesinger Twins: Manchester Beis Din supports Beth's campaign

update - 2nd page of above letter  Help Beth - Manchester Beth Din Letter

Whilst, as stated above, our influence on the judicial system in Austria is extremely limited, we do feel however that there needs to be a wakeup call to the Jewish Community in Vienna who have abandoned Beth and shattered her expectations of what a community ought to provide for those experiencing difficulties. I knew Beth prior to her marriage and know that her hopes and desires were to set up a Torah true Jewish home. The fact that this was not possible with Dr Schlesinger is hard enough for her to bear, but the fact that she equally hoped to be a staunch member of an Orthodox community and now feels totally bereft and lacking any meaningful support, is something which she finds even more concerning.

It is the sincere hope of Manchester Beth Din that the community will see Beth for what she is, a true heroine and devoted mother, who could bring so much happiness to her children and ensure their proper development. The community is asked to support her in every conceivable way and to ensure that the obvious miscarriage of justice is rectified at the earliest opportunity thereby enabling her to relate properly and meaningfully with her children.

Yours sincerely

Y Brodie

REGISTRAR

Schlesinger Twins: An aspect of the debate between Rabbi Kennard and Rabbi Schochet

Guest Post:

There is currently a debate taking place from opposite sides of the globe between Rabbi Kennard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kennard ), the Principal of Mount Scopus Memorial College in Melbourne, Australia, and Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Schochet ), Rabbi of the Mill Hill Synagogue in London.

The discussion started when Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence announced his returning to London thereby leaving his post at the Great Synagogue in Sydney, the largest of its kind and one of the biggest shuls in Australia. Rabbi Kennard wrote a piece in the Australian Jewish News encouraging the decision-makers the Great Synagogue to consider non-Chabad Modern Orthodox Rabbis for this position.

Rabbi Schochet took it upon himself to respond to this article and wrote how Chabad Rabbis take on their community "akin to marriage": http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=28949

This prompted Rabbi Kennard to respond with his article titled "Chabad is not the only way" and noted the silence from every Chabad Rabbi around the world with regard to the "custody case in a European city where the Chabad director insists on remaining neutral in a conflict that pits good against evil" (The Schlesinger twins in Vienna).

Rabbi Schochet in turn responded with an accusation of misinterpreting the facts, which Rabbi Kennard denies and provides the sources. It is interesting to note that Rabbi Schochet omitted to refer to the aforementioned custody case.< The debate has reached a standstill in that Rabbi Schochet has refused to contribute to the AJN because he accuses them of bias ( http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=29128 ), yet I have tried to comment on the colive debate but have been moderated. Looking at the one-sided nature of the comments on both of those articles, it looks like many other people have been moderated on colive too.< I encourage Daas Torah to bring this discussion to the fore and for everyone to read both sides of this discussion at:

https://www.facebook.com/RabbiJamesKennard

http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=28949

http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=29128

I believe the Daas Torah blog to be totally unbiased in its moderation of comments and look forward to reading people's thoughts.

Pursuing goyim with possible Jewish ancestors Michael Freund

JPost   It behooves Israel to take notice of this and to consider making its own historic gestures, particularly to the Bnei Anusim, the descendants of Spanish and Portuguese Jews who were compelled to convert to Catholicism in the 14th and 15th centuries.

At great risk to themselves and their families, many of the Bnei Anusim continued to practice Judaism covertly despite the Inquisition, carefully passing down their hidden identity from one generation to the next. Their descendants can be found in every corner of the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking world, and their numbers are estimated to be in the millions.

At Shavei Israel, the organization I chair, we have seen a huge increase in recent years in the number of Bnei Anusim looking to reaffirm or reclaim their Jewish identity, in places as far afield as northern Portugal, Chile, El Salvador, Sicily and Colombia.

Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, in a recent speech in Ashdod, took note of this phenomenon, correctly arguing that it is time for the State of Israel to “ease the way for their return.”

I couldn’t agree more.

The Bnei Anusim are our brethren and, through no fault of their own, their ancestors were torn away from us under duress. We owe it to them, and to ourselves, to strengthen the bonds between us and bring back to the Jewish people as many of them as possible.

Steps should be taken to address the myriad bureaucratic and religious issues that stand in their way so that the door of return for the Bnei Anusim can finally swing open.

After all, if Spain, which cast their ancestors out, is seeking ways to reconcile with the descendants of Iberian Jewry, then isn’t it time for Israel to do the same?

A proposal for childless couples who want children named after them and for kadish to be said after 120 years

The following was sent to me as a serious proposal by someone I know. It is clearly acceptable according to halacha as well as the spiritual and psychological dimensions. Being childless is a very difficult situation to live with in our community, but the lack of children to carry on one's name as well as to say kaddish is at least as distressing.

 

People are constantly looking for chessed opportunities while others are preoccupied with the shidduch crisis. I believe I have an idea which is ,as they say,a win/win situation that can address both issues simultaneously. 

Unfortunately there are people ,especially those who have devoted their lives to chinuch,who are simply overwhelmed by the costs of marrying off their children. This is particularly stressful (if not worse) for those who live in Israel and must deal with the reality of funding an apartment. While one may criticize the system  it is not a changin’ and one muust do what they need to do. As they say in Yiddish A Breira Hust Du (do you have a choice? 

I propose that a creative soul might want to search for couples who unfortunately  do not have children (and are of the age that probably won’t) but who have the means to help parents who lack the means. In return the young couple will name some of their children after the magnanimous benefactors and will see that Kaddish is recited after their 120.

I believe this is an example of a 360 degree chessed for all involved. 

Would love to hear some thoughts on this and hearty souls willing to shadchan such a partnership.

Montessori Schools infiltrate Jewish education

NY Times   In the boys’ classroom at Lamplighters Yeshivah in the Hasidic Jewish stronghold of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, Montessori number-counting boards and decimal beads share space with Hebrew-learning materials. A colorful timeline on the wall shows two strands of world history in parallel: secular on the left, Jewish on the right. A photo of the grand rabbi of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement hangs above a list of tasks that children perform individually: make a fractions poster, practice cursive, learn about the moon’s phases.

Into the classroom on a recent morning came Rivkah Schack, one of the school’s principals, holding a tool whose form, if not its content, would be familiar to any Montessori teacher: a small nomenclature booklet in which the students were to write words from the Bible by hand and illustrate them. In secular Montessori, the booklets might be used to teach botanical terms; here, they were for Hebrew.

“Not to mix our metaphors, but that’s our holy grail,” said Ami Petter-Lipstein, the director of the Jewish Montessori Society, based in Highland Park, N.J., as Ms. Schack gathered a few pupils around her on the rug for a group Hebrew lesson.

For an educational movement trying to use a century-old pedagogical method developed by an Italian Catholic, Maria Montessori, to teach Jewish tenets, mixing metaphors is the point. Arguing that the traditional Jewish day-school model they grew up with is outmoded and too clannish for 21st-century Judaism, a new generation of parents and educators are flocking to Montessori preschools and elementary schools that combine secular studies with Torah and Hebrew lessons.

Daniel Septimus, who attended a modern Orthodox school but now identifies as a traditional egalitarian Jew, said the schools he had attended were “purposely insular.”

“We knew there was a big, wide world out there where people did different things, but it was kind of scary, and we were supposed to have limited contact with it,” he said.

His son Lev, 3, attends Luria Academy in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, a Montessori school that proudly advertises the religious diversity of its students. “I think this is just more realistic,” Mr. Septimus said. “Ultimately, our kids are going to live in diverse and multicultural communities.”

In Brooklyn, whose more than 600,000 Jews include secular Jews in brownstone Brooklyn and Hasidic Jews in Borough Park and Williamsburg, four Montessori schools have opened in the last decade. Each is tailored to a different group: one is for Hasidic girls in Borough Park, another for Hasidic boys in Midwood; Lamplighters’ students are mainly Chabad-Lubavitchers, while Luria’s students range from secular to Hasidic. [...]

Meeting in Lakewood regarding the Torah Approach to Marriage

WHAT? Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn, a Talmid of Gedolim HaGaon Amiti HaRav Aharon Kotler zt”l, Posek HaDor HaGaon HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, and Posek HaDor HaGaon HaRav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l, will speak to a group of men about marriage.

The crisis of divorce and broken families will also be addressed. Rabbi Eidensohn will also present his program of Shalom Bayis Beth Dins, which could greatly reduce the number of broken marriages, agunoth, and coerced Gittin. This program has already been approved by leading Poskim in Gittin and experts in family law.

WHEN? Thursday, March 6, 2014 @ 2:10 PM.

WHERE? Lakewood Township Municipal Building, 231 3^rd Street, Second Floor Room C. Parking available at Municipal Parking Lot.

COST – No cost.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
One who seeks solutions for the above.

WHAT WILL BE TAUGHT? What marriage or KIDDUSHIN means and why we must not destroy it. How a Shalom Bayis Beth Din can improve and save marriages. The halochos of coercing a GET when the husband refuses to give a GET. Why the vast majority of coerced Gittin are invalid.

You may call Rabbi Eidensohn at 1-845-578-19171-845-578-1917

 HaGadol HaGaon HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt”l wrote in his haskomo for Rabbi Eidensohn’s first sefer in halacha, “The Rav HaGaon is already known to me for many years as one who delves deeply to clarify complex halochos.” YB”L HaGadol HaGaon HaRav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner of Bnei Braq wrote in his haskomo, “A Talmid Chochom deserves very much credit. Words of truth are recognized, and words proceed from the heart and are written lishmo.”

Call

Send SMS

Add to Skype

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

Men also suffer from Sexism

Atlantic    Can men be victims of sexism? 

An NPR Morning Edition report this week suggests strongly that the answer is "yes." As Jennifer Ludden reports, after divorce men can face burdensome alimony payments even in situations where their ex-wives are capable of working and earning a substantial income. Even in cases where temporary alimony makes sense—as when a spouse has quit a job to raise the children—it's hard to understand the need for lifetime alimony payments, given women's current levels of workforce participation. As one alimony-paying ex-husband says, "The theory behind this was fine back in the '50s, when everybody was a housewife and stayed home." But today, it looks like an antiquated perpetuation of retrograde gender roles—a perpetuation which, disproportionately, harms men.

This isn't the only case in which men can suffer from gender discrimination. David Benatar, in his 2012 monograph The Second Sexism discusses a whole range of other ways in which men as men are disadvantaged. Men, for example, receive custody of children in only about 10 percent of divorce cases in the United States. Men also, as Benatar writes, are subject to "a long history of social and legal pressure...to fight in war" —pressures which women do not generally experience in the same way. Along the same lines, physical violence against men is often minimized or seen as normal. Benatar refers to the history of corporal punishment, which has much more often been inflicted on boys than girls. Society's scandalous tolerance of rape in prison seems like it is also related to a general indifference to, or even amusement at, sexual violence committed against men. [...]

Shorshei HaYam- Beriat Olam and Sod Elokut by Rav Yaakov Hillel

 Shorshei HaYam- Beriat Olam and Sod Elokut 

Is Lack of Intellectual Honesty causing a crisis in Chareidi world?

There has been an intensive and heated discussion going on in the comments section to the post -  Psychology of everyday life

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

PloniFebruary 19, 2014 at 8:01 PM

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…

Ploni

February 20, 2014 at 5:17 AM

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,

PloniFebruary 20, 2014 at 5:17 AM

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”?

Avoid saying NO by Allan Katz

Allan Katz [....] Parents often use the argument  -'  des pashts nishts ' with kids – it is not appropriate or our family does not do this type of thing. Generally, if parents show a passionate belief in what they say and offer explanations it might help, but sometimes the parents are forbidding something which is allowed according to the halacha – law ,but they hold by higher standards and the kid is not there with them.  And here Ha'rav Osher Weiss in an answer to a question from an  overseas  'anglo-saxon'  audience concerning certain  English literature for kids said -  sometimes saying NO has a worse impact than allowing a kid his request . It is not the message we teach - …..  , but the message kids learn is that their concerns are not taken seriously by us and ignored. This is the down side to the advice parents are given -  tell your kids NO a few times a day so they get used to hearing NO.

I prefer to avoid saying No . Saying No is essentially only one solution to a concern . Because the solution only addresses the parents concern we are using Plan A. – imposing Adult will.  I recommend 'Don’t stick your no’s in unnecessarily, try to say yes and don’t be rigid.'

I like the phrase - ' I am not saying No '

Of course this does not mean I am saying yes , it means ' I just want to hear your concerns , can you tell me more ?' Our purpose is to get a conversation going with the child mainly speaking and  we  listening. We need to gather information about the child's  concerns.

When our concerns are put on the table, we are in fact setting a limit, because our concerns will be addressed by the mutually satisfying solution.

Any solution must be mutually satisfactory addressing both concerns of the parent and child. Of course there will be times that a parent will insist on his way but the kid who has had his concerns taken seriously in the past is more likely to trust his parents when they insist on  their solution.

Try to talk things through and help your child connect with his true inner core so that the mutually satisfying solution is one that he feels is his own, meets his needs and an expression of who he is. The CPS - collaborative problem solving process Cp builds relationship , promotes life skills that will be needed when he goes out into the world and especially help with important relationships including marriage. The process also  supports his autonomy in a healthy way.

The All or Nothing Marriage: When it is good it is very good but when it is bad it is horrid

NY Times   ARE marriages today better or worse than they used to be?

This vexing question is usually answered in one of two ways. According to the marital decline camp, marriage has weakened: Higher divorce rates reflect a lack of commitment and a decline of moral character that have harmed adults, children and society in general. But according to the marital resilience camp, though marriage has experienced disruptive changes like higher divorce rates, such developments are a sign that the institution has evolved to better respect individual autonomy, particularly for women. The true harm, by these lights, would have been for marriage to remain as confining as it was half a century ago.

As a psychological researcher who studies human relationships, I would like to offer a third view. Over the past year I immersed myself in the scholarly literature on marriage: not just the psychological studies but also work from sociologists, economists and historians. Perhaps the most striking thing I learned is that the answer to whether today’s marriages are better or worse is “both”: The average marriage today is weaker than the average marriage of yore, in terms of both satisfaction and divorce rate, but the best marriages today are much stronger, in terms of both satisfaction and personal well-being, than the best marriages of yore.[...]

How and why did this divergence occur? In answering this question, I worked with the psychologists Chin Ming Hui, Kathleen L. Carswell and Grace M. Larson to develop a new theory of marriage, which we will publish later this year in a pair of articles in the journal Psychological Inquiry. Our central claim is that Americans today have elevated their expectations of marriage and can in fact achieve an unprecedentedly high level of marital quality — but only if they are able to invest a great deal of time and energy in their partnership. If they are not able to do so, their marriage will likely fall short of these new expectations. Indeed, it will fall further short of people’s expectations than at any time in the past.

Marriage, then, has increasingly become an “all or nothing” proposition. This conclusion not only challenges the conventional opposition between marital decline and marital resilience; but it also has implications for policy makers looking to bolster the institution of marriage — and for individual Americans seeking to strengthen their own relationships.[...]

HERE lie both the great successes and great disappointments of modern marriage. Those individuals who can invest enough time and energy in their partnership are seeing unprecedented benefits. The sociologists Jeffrey Dew and W. Bradford Wilcox have demonstrated that spouses who spent “time alone with each other, talking, or sharing an activity” at least once per week were 3.5 times more likely to be very happy in their marriage than spouses who did so less frequently. The sociologist Paul R. Amato and colleagues have shown that spouses with a larger percentage of shared friends spent more time together and had better marriages.

But on average Americans are investing less in their marriages — to the detriment of those relationships. Professor Dew has shown that relative to Americans in 1975, Americans in 2003 spent much less time alone with their spouses. Among spouses without children, weekly spousal time declined to 26 hours per week from 35 hours, and much of this decline resulted from an increase in hours spent at work. Among spouses with children at home, spousal time declined to 9 hours per week from 13, and much of this decline resulted from an increase in time-intensive parenting.[...]