R' S. R. Hirsh: Consequences of religious anti-intellectualism

R’ S. R. Hirsch (Nineteen Letters #18): [The leaders of Orthodoxy] became at first enemies of this philosophical spirit, and later of all specifically intellectual and philosophical pursuits in general. Certain misunderstood utterances [e.g., Bereishis Rabbah 44:1] were taken as weapons with which to repel all higher interpretations of the Talmud . . . The inevitable consequence was, therefore, that since oppression and persecution had robbed Israel of every broad and natural view of world and of life, and Talmud had yielded about all the practical results for life of which it was capable, every mind that felt the desire of independent activity was obliged to forsake the paths of study and research in general open to the human intellect, and to take its recourse to dialectic subtleties and hairsplitting. Only a very few [e.g., R’ Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari and Ramban] during this entire period stood with their intellectual efforts entirely within Judaism, and built it up out of its own inner concept [Drachman translation]…. we are left with two generations confronting each other. One of them has inherited an uncomprehended Judaism, as practiced by men from habit, a revered but lifeless mummy which it is afraid to bring back to life. The other, though in part burning with noble enthusiasm for the welfare of the Jews, regards Judaism as bereft of any life and spirit, a relic of an era long past and buried, and tries to uncover its spirit, but, not finding it, threatens through its well﷓meant efforts to sever the last life nerve of Judaism - out of sheer ignorance [Paritzky translation].

Seridei Aish Key to learning Torah is challenging Sages who are presumed to be correct

Daas Torah page 193

Seridei Aish (1:113): I frequently comment on the apparent contradiction found in Avos (6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah i.e. analysis of the students and faith in our Sages. Furthermore, what does faith in our Sages have to do with acquiring Torah? However, the explanation is that if one doesn’t believe in the truth of the words of the sages then one readily dismisses them for the slightest reason. With an attitude of condescension, one proclaims that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Consequently, one makes no effort to investigate and try to validate what they said. However, in the end we find that in fact we are the ones who have erred. … Therefore it is characteristic of the truly wise to presume that the sages have not erred, G-d forbid! In fact we, with our limited perspective and limited understanding, have erred. On the other hand to blindly believe and not struggle to comprehend with our intellect the apparent difficulties, saying simply that they knew and we need merely to mindlessly rely on them, that is also not correct. We need to wrestle mightily with the apparent contradictions and doubts as if they are people like us. With this approach, we will come to a much profounder and sharper comprehension. Thus, we see that both factors - emunas chachomim (faith in our sages) and pilpul (intellectual evaluation) - work together to the purpose of the acquisition of Torah.

Accepting G-d's authority is difficult for Jews

Netziv (Shemos 13:9): Don’t be surprised that G-d requires us to do so many mitzvos and techniques to acquire bitachon (trust) and emuna (faith) in G-d’s Providence. The fact is that it is known that the Jews do not readily accept authority until they are forced as we see by the plagues. That is why G-d took us out of Egypt with a strong hand because it was not easy for us to accept His dominance. This is seen in the medrash which discusses, “The Jews did not listen to Moshe because of their irritability and stress of their enslavement.”  The medrash explains that they didn’t want to listen because they were immersed in idol worship. In other words, the medrash means that in fact they did not want to be redeemed. In truth though the first time when they were told that G-d had remembered them and sent Moshe to save them that all of them believed and bowed down. The reason that they responded differently the second time was that at that time He informed them that He wanted to be their G-d. In other words, they had no problem acknowledging G-d except when it meant they would be supervised and controlled by G-d depending on their behavior. Thus, they didn’t want to accept G-d’s control until G-d took them out of Egypt against their will. Something which is difficult for a person to accept requires many activities to implant in his heart.

Scientific statements of Chazal might only be according to the science of their day

page 142 Daas Torah

Michtav M'Eliyahu  (4:355): When Rav Dessler was asked concerning certain halachos that the reason that had been given for them is not in accord with modern science... [for example] (3) This that it is permitted to kill lice because they don't reproduce sexually (Shabbos 107b. Rav Dessler stated that concerning this matter and those like them the Halacha never changes even though the reason doesn't make sense to us. We are to hold on to the Halacha with two hands whether to be strict or lenient [not like the Pachad Yitzchok]. The reason for this is that the Halacha was known to Chazal by tradition through the generations and they also knew things through experience.... The important point is that the reasoning they gave did not create the Halacha but rather the reverse was true, the Halacha created the reasoning. The reasoning given in the gemora is not the only possible explanation. If they happened to give explanations on occasion which were only true according to the science of their day, we have an obligation to search out alternative explanations that will justify the Halacha according to modern science.... Even if one cannot find a convincing explanation,we must still believe with perfect faith that the Halacha is still true and we hope that G﷓d will enlighten us with an appropriate explanation.

Chasam Sofer - Jews were protected from assimilation by being despised and uncivilized

Chasam Sofer (Derashos—BeShalach): G-d took the Jews out of Egypt which was the lowest type of society that did all types of disgusting abominations which G-d hated. The Jews at that point were a despised lowly people - not even a distinct nation. In Egypt, they were primitive slaves working with bricks and mortar and were without doubt devoid of even minimal knowledge of culture or science. They even lacked elementary knowledge of civilized conduct. Our sages (Yoma 75b) say that the Jews in Egypt were comparable to chickens pecking in a garbage dump until Moshe came and taught them the concept of meal times - breakfast and dinner. [Seforno —they were like animals]. We see that they were totally primitive like the slaves of the barbarians. So how could this debased people be immediately brought to Sinai where they were shown the most profound secrets of the universe and became prophets with unbounded understanding of spiritual issues? This question is reinforced by the fact that they remained primitive and uncultured people as we can see from their lowly behavior and outrageous complaints during this time? Wouldn’t it have been better to gradually educate them in civilized conduct to the level of the best of the nations of the world. They should have at least been raised to the level where they could be considered a nation. Once they were civilized, they should then have been refined level by level until they were prepared for receiving the Torah at Sinai? In truth, it is impossible to keep the Jews as a distinctive people unless they are completely separated from the other nations. That is accomplished by not learning knowledge which is common to other nations even Bible on the level of translation. The natural tendency to assimilation can only be prevented by going to the opposite extreme. If G-d had first educated the Jews in worldly knowledge, they would never have acquired the truth of the Torah and faith. Before they would have reached, this final goal they would have already rejected them because these studies would have given them the universal identity common amongst all the nations. Moreover, even if the Jews had understood that the gods of the nations were worthless illusions and reject them, nevertheless they would also have completely rejected G-d also.

Kuzari: Commonsense is subordinate to Tradition

Kuzari (3:49): If a person relied entirely on his logic and commonsense in these matters he might in fact arrive at a very different conclusion. Therefore, it is best not to rely entirely on logical reasoning concerning the observance of the Torah commandments because it is likely just to create doubts which can lead to heresy. Furthermore, since people often have different opinions of what is commonsense, it will lead to significant disagreement with others who are relying entirely on their commonsense. Consequently, it is best to have one’s understanding rooted in traditional understanding and what is in the texts. With these as his starting point, he can then successfully apply logical reasoning - no matter where it leads - even if the conclusions are against one’s rational understanding and intuition… There are in fact many things in the physical world that reality conflicts with appearance or common understanding. Furthermore that which our Sages said is permitted, it was not because they followed their personal opinion or preference. Rather it was the conclusion of the inherited wisdom that had been transmitted to them by Tradition. It is exactly the same thing concerning that which they prohibit. A person who is unable to comprehend their wisdom and yet judges their words according to his own limited understanding will view their words as bizarre. This is comparable to the fact that the ignorant masses think that the words of philosophers and scientists are bizarre. The sages, when they ascertain the parameters of each Halacha and determine what is permitted and prohibited, do it entirely according to the objective principles of the law...

Chasam Sofer - explanations need to agree with scientific reality

Chasam Sofer (Nidah 18a): What are the meanings of the anatomical terms mentioned in this Mishna? After I researched medical books and medical writers as well as scholars and surgical texts, I have concluded that we cannot deny the fact that reality is not as described by Rashi, Tosfos and the drawings of the Maharam of Lublin. We have only what the Rambam wrote in the Mishna Torah and his Commentary to the Mishna - even though the latter has statements which are unclear. However, you will find correct drawings in the book Maaseh Tuviah and Shevili Emuna…. Therefore, I did not bother at all with the commentaries of Rashi and Tosfos in this matter since it is impossible to match them with true reality. You should know this.

Seridei Aish: The Mussar Movement as frum Haskalah

Seridei Aish’s (4:293—in Men of Spirit edited by Rabbi Leo Jung. page 223): The very leaders who fought so bitterly against the new movement [of Chassidus] were the first to recognize the need for some change. They admitted some truth in the charges by Hassidim that the Judaism of Lithuania had no soul, that “their Torah had no life and that their prayers lacked significance.” They recognized that they had been neglecting the spiritual content of the Torah by paying insufficient attention to the philosophical problems involved… [page 242:]: The Musar movement, rooted in the desire for spiritual perfection and the improvement of character, acquired a new factor in Kovno: concern for very survival of Judaism, which was threatened by the Haskalah movement, whose early romantic charm had long since passed and which could now be seen in its furious conspiracy against traditional Judaism. R. Israel’s slogan was: “Fight the Maskilim with their own weapons! Form an all‑Hebrew genuine Haskalah movement and educate rabbis and teachers to spread this pure Hebrew Haskalah among the people!” ... “Rejection of the secular Haskalah alone is not enough,” argued R. Israel. “It is the nature of a new cultural trend to seep in through small crevices. Fighting it with prohibitions and excommunications alone will not stem the tide, for the spirit of man is not to be stemmed by mere force. “The suppression of the spirit in itself is of no value. It cuts short spiritual development and results in but a spiritual sterility. The sole defense against a cultural movement breaking in from the outside is the establishment of an opposing cultural force, and the opening of doors to a fresh trend of thought, stemming from the very dept of our Jewish soul. Thus not a war against a foreign ‘enlightenment’ but a war for Hebrew original Haskalah, which means moral perfection, nobility of soul, and lofty ideals. Such a deep—rooted Haskalah need not fear foreign enlightenment, which is but external polish and technical proficiency, has no roots in Judaism, and cannot satisfy the yearnings of a Jewish heart.”

 

Halacha is according to majority - even if view is not factually true

Ginas Veradim (O.H. 2:6): According to the Torah one needs to follow the majority in all matters—even though for a particular issue it is possible and even likely that the result is not true. One follows the majority even in such serious matters as marital issues which can cause mamzerim…. The Rambam’s words concerning the validity of a Sefer Torah fit in well with this. Since we are trying to ascertain the correct text, it is necessary to thoroughly examine all possible scrolls—and then follow the majority. A Torah which has been corrected to follow this majority view is considered as being the Torah which was given on Sinai. Any deviation from this “majority” text is considered completely invalid according to Torah law and it lacks the sanctity of a Sefer Torah… The scribes from the previous generations worked hard to determine an accurate text based on the principle of “majority”… Therefore, a Torah which has been corrected according to this established text should not be modified. It should be viewed as the text that was received from Sinai. Consequently, any deviation from this standard accepted text - even a small single letter - should not be used l’chatchila for public reading. It should be viewed as an ordinary Chumash as the Rambam himself writes. However if it were used for public reading then one can rely on those who are lenient and not require that the reading be done over from the beginning…

World of Geirim VII - Shidduchim Issues - Relationship with parents

Igros Moshe (Y.D. 2:130): 
 
Concerning a giyores whose non-Jewish mother is sick. Should she go to her mother with her children as her mother requests?

Concerning the matter of a giyores who has been following the appropriate Jewish practices and has kept a distance from her father and mother from the time that she has converted 20 years ago even though they live in the same city. But now her mother has fallen ill and requests that she come with her children to see her because she has a great longing to see her grandchildren . Even though the giyores knows that according to the Torah there is relationship anymore with her parents, nevertheless  she wants to know if it is appropriate because she has a very strong natural love to her parents and she wants to fulfill her mother's request at this  time of sickness. Her rabbi wants to permit it because of the concern that she might revert to her old ways as we see that there is such a concern regarding inheritance that a decree was made that a convert inherits his non-Jewish father because of this fear (Kiddushin 17).

Answer: I agree that the halacha is as her rabbi wrote that it can be permitted but because of logic. Because it is not clear that this fear for other things can be compared to loss of money because the desire for them is not so strong. However the more appropriate reason is that they might say that the laws of Torah are not correct if she is told not to go  and this is a very significant point by itself even without the concern that she might revert. We see this from the fact that the halacha is that we visit sick non-Jews for the sake of peace as well as sustain the poor non-Jews and bury their dead for the sake of peace (Gittin 61).... So it is obvious that she and her children would be going against the ways of peace of they don't visit her mother. So besides that factor the Rambam (Mamrim 5;11) states that it is prohibited for a ger to curse his non-Jewish father or hit him and not to shame him so that people won't say that the ger went from a higher religion to a lower one so he should at least not shame his father (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 241)... So if she doesn't go to visit her sick mother with her children it will cause the mother suffering and maybe it will drive her crazy. Thus we see it is an insult to the mother if she doesn't go and it is such pain that it is like hitting and cursing her. So therefore going to her mother is not only permitted but is obligatory to comply with the wishes of her mother to come and bring her children....

R' Akiva Eiger writes that this is part of human culture.... This mean that even though it is not an explict law of the Torah that a non-Jew must  honor his parents and therefore it is not an issue of coming from a higher religion to a low one nevertheless but since natural ethics requires honoring parents then it is also included in coming from a higher religion to a lower one. It is like the reason of chillul hashem if they should say that the Torah permits something that even a nonJewish knows is prohibited...

Therefore it appears in my opinion that it is like the prohibition against ingratitude that we find in agadata that G-d was very particular about this with Adam and also with the Jewish people. Therefore this is something prohibited which is the same between Jews and non-Jews... This is like we don't find explicit prohibitions on bad character traits even though they are disgusting and they incur punishment both for Jews and non-Jews....

We can conclude from this analysis that even if her mother wasn't sick it would be appropriate to go at infrequent occassions if it would appear as ingratitute if she didn't go. It is only to be with her parents on a regular basis that is prohibited even for her in order that she distance herself from them and not revert and it is surely prohibited for her children to go regularly because they might eat unkosher food. However now that her mother is sick -besides visiting for the sake of peace she is obligated to visit with her children to give some sort of honor to her mother and to avoid shaming her (Shulchan Aruch)
'... .

Step Aside, Freud: Josef Breuer Is the True Father of Modern Psychotherapy

 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/step-aside-freud-josef-breuer-is-the-true-father-of-modern-psychotherapy/

It is notable that Breuer had been more than a collaborator to Freud, who was 14 years younger, lending him money, referring patients to his practice, and welcoming him into his home. Yale historian Peter Gay, in his biography of Freud, wrote, “His disagreeable grumbling about Breuer in the 1890s is a classic case of ingratitude, the resentment of a proud debtor against his benefactor.”

Expert's evaluation is like a beis din & witnesses

Igros Moshe(Y.D. 2:103): Concerning the matter of a teacher who wants to punish a student that he has warned (Makkos 8b)… Certainly a teacher needs to punish a student for that which he clearly did - but not for mere suspicions. This is also true even if the teacher thinks that there is clearly circumstantial evidence that the student committed the prohibited act. It is not permitted for any person in the world to rely on his own opinion in order to punish even the slightest – unless he has clear knowledge and witnesses. Even for a matter which is only worth pennies (peruta) it is necessary to have witnesses and surely for corporal punishment which is worth more than money. In fact the teacher’s right to punish is not any different then a beis din for which mere suspicion is irrelevant to punish. However there is an apparent contradiction found in Makkos (8b) that even though a student has learned his lesson it is still permitted to punish him? But that is only if according to the student’s ability he is able to learn more Torah than he does because he is lazy and doesn’t work hard. In such a case he can be punished even though the student in fact had learned his lesson and doesn’t waste his time. But if the student does not look deeply into the matter because of his laziness then it is appropriate to punish him. This action is based only on the evaluation of the teacher because his expertise makes this something obvious to him and it is within his competence to judge these matters and it is impossible to go to beis din to judge this matter. There are obviously other matters that occur regularly to either a rav or a teacher and his students that they judge according to their understanding without bringing in witnesses and judges. These judgments that a rav or a teacher make without testimony of witnesses before a beis din is similar to what we find in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 35:14) that in circumstances where men don’t typically go – there is an ancient decree to believe women. And similarly a rav or a teacher and his students, it is a very common that he is forced to rely on his expert opinion alone in deciding what actions to take. Nevertheless this knowledge has to be something that is clear to him and not mere suspicions. Furthermore if there are any doubt or suspicions concerning one of his students in a matter that is improper, it is necessary to first speak to him in a way that draws him closer to Torah and keeps him away from the suspected behavior. However if it clearly known to the teacher that it is necessary for the student to be punished, then it is proper to punish him calmly and not with anger or upset….

Use of deception to get mitzvos & spiritual perfection

Shaarei Teshuva(482:2): It says in Bava Metzia (62a) that your needs come before that of other people even in a matters of life and death. This is learned by R’ Akiva in the case of two people in the desert with a single container of water from the verse of “Your brother shall live with you” - which means that his life is secondary to yours. So if this principle is true in physical issues then surely it is true in spiritual issues. (This is written in Igros Shmuel to Megila Ruth. He says that Boaz knew by ruach hakodesh that Ruth would be the ancestress of the Davidic kings and therefore he described her as a Moabite in order that she would be rejected for marriage and he could marry her and he would merit having the royal descendants. Even though it is prohibited for someone to deceive others even to take that which is rightfully his. But that prohibition is in monetary matters but not concerning mitzvos. Even though it is impossible to take a mitzva away from someone who already has obtained the rights to it such as mila, nevertheless if no one has actually claimed the mitzva yet then it is viewed as a wilderness and available to all and everyone has the obligation to perfect his soul and merit having mitzvos. We see this principle also with Yaakov and how he took the rights of the first-born and the berachos since he knew that Esav was headed to do evil and Yaakov needed them to reach spiritual perfection as is explained by the Akeidas Yitzchok…).

Public knowledge is not lashon harah

 Chofetz Chaim (clall 2) goes into great detail to try and disprove the simple understanding of Bava Basra (39b)/Erachin (16a), Tosfos and the view of the Rambam. These sources seem to say that the essence of lashon harah is speaking gossip in a concealed manner - not just saying negative things about others. Thus if it is said in a way that it will become public knowledge then there is no prohibition of lashon harah. This is apparently closer to the peshat of Vayikra (19:16).

Erachin(16a): Disparaging remarks said in front of three people is not considered lashon harah. What is the reaon? Because your friend has a friend and your friend’s friend has a friend [and thus it is considered public knowledge].

Tosfos (Bava Basra 39b): Negative words about another person that are said n the presence of three people is not prohibited as lashon harah - either to say or to repeat it to others This is clarified by the statement said in Erachin (15b) There this statement is said in the context of R’ Yossi statement in which he said, “I have never said something and looked around to see who was listening.” That means he wasn’t concerned if the one he was talking about was there. [That proves that saying negative comments in the presence of three people is not considered lashon harah – Rashi].

Meiri(Shabbos 33b): Even though lashon harah is the foundation of a number of sins and something which our sages spend much effort in severely attacking – there are two conditions in which lashon harah is permitted 1) This is mentioned in Erchin (15b) that derogatory words which are said in the presence of the one being talked about are not considered lashon harah. The gemora questions this and says that lashon harah said in the presence of the one being criticized is surely impudence and lashon harah? This is explained with a statement of R’ Yose that he never said any words about another person and looked around to make sure the person wasn't there. In other words if the person speaking does not refrain from saying the negative words before the one he is speaking about – there is a leniency and this is not considered lashon harah. For example if the speaker directly complains about the other person or calls him a thief and others such negative statements in his presence – the speaker is not considered speaking lashon harah. That is because he wants the person he is criticizing to hear what he is saying. 2) This is also mentioned in Erchin (16a) that whatever is said in the presence of three people is not considered lashon harah. That is because the speaker is saying the negative things with the full desire that his views reach the person he is speaking about. That is because all matters that are known to three people is not considered concealed or a secret. Therefore the speaker is not considered to be saying lashon harah. 

Rambam(Hilchos De’os 7:5): Speaking lashon harah is prohibited whether the person being spoken about is present or not. Those words which will cause harm to another person - either physically or financially when repeated by others or even if it upset him or frightens him – is considered lashon harah. If these types of words are said in the presence of three people then it can be assumed that they have become public knowledge Therefore if one of the three repeats the negative words which he had heard on another occasion – there is no prohibition of lashon harah. However this is only permitted if he did not intend to spread the news and cause it to become more known.