An Arbitrary Patchwork

Originally Posted on Sept. 1, '09:

Please do not point, in reply, to the current efforts to reform Judaism. There indeed, everything that does not harmonize with today's concepts of the destiny of man or the needs of the time is being pared away little by little. But its this not itself a step outside Judaism? Would it not be better, then, to adopt and implement these current concepts consistently, on their own, instead of tying them to ideas that are at variance with them which can only produce an arbitrary patchwork.("Benjamin", The Nineteen Letters, letter 1)

While Reform has become a distinct movement, the reform which Rav Hirsch zt"l dismisses still shows its head in our own communities.

While Orthopraxy is hard enough for me to understand, I find it even harder to understand the mindset of those who identify as believers yet seem un-deterred from rejecting any traditional belief which they find too hard to swallow. As long as the denial doesn't lead to the rejection of one of the principles of faith (or even if it does for many people) then it's fair game. Little thought is given as to whether one is left with a coherent religious philosophy when one is done.

In truth though, while the logic of this approach is dubious, it can serve as a powerful answer to the yetzer hara. One's evil inclination will try to attack one's resolve for learning Torah and doing mitzvos by asking "what if"? What if it's not true, what if you're wrong, etc? One should simply remind oneself of all those yidden who frequent Orthodox blogs which primarily discuss halachic and hashkafic topics yet when the topic comes up they don't really believe the Torah is from Sinai etc. Those people don't believe it is true, yet they still lehrn! Why shouldn't I, who only has fleeting doubts provoked by my yetzer hara, do likewise?

This illustrates the attraction of a Yid's neshamah to Torah. A Yid may have succumbed to heretical or erroneous beliefs c'v, but in the end he is happier at least maintaining an arbitrary patchwork than entirely abandoning Yiddishkeit.

*The Nineteen Letters translated by R. Joseph Elias, page 6.

Kuzari and the Age of the Universe

Recently it was argued, off the cuff, that the Kuzari should be understood as referring to when Adam HaRishon received a soul and therefore does not speak to a literal understanding of the six days of creation. While this argument seems to have been an educated guess based on its authors understanding of similar texts, I would suggest that this hypothesis does not seem to hold up:

44. Al Khazari: It is strange that you should possess authentic chronology of the creation of the world.

45. The Rabbi: Surely we reckon according to it, and there is no difference between the Jews of Khazar and Ethiopia in this respect.

46. Al Khazari: What date do you consider it at present?

47. The Rabbi: Four thousand and nine hundred years. The details can be demonstrated from the lives of Adam, Seth and Enōsh to Noah; then Shem and Eber to Abraham; then Isaac and Jacob to Moses. All of them represented the essence and purity of Adam on account of their intimacy with God. Each of them had children only to be compared to them outwardly, but not really like them, and, therefore, without direct union with the divine influence. The chronology was established through the medium of those sainted persons who were only single individuals, and not a crowd, until Jacob begat the Twelve Tribes, who were all under this divine influence. Thus the divine element reached a multitude of persons who carried the records further. The chronology of those who lived before these has been handed down to us by Moses (Kuzari 1:44-47, 1905 translation by Hartwig Hirschfeld)

The discussion is about the "creation of the world" which would imply the six days of creation preceding and inclusive of the creation (or giving of a soul to) Adam HaRishon. I think this is further emphasized by "the Rabbi"'s response in 1:61 that reliable information that the world was older than 4900 years would challenge his faith, which at very least would be inconsistent with a view that tool wielding hominids roamed the world prior to one of them being given a neshamah.

Does this settle the matter, of course not. But I do think that the Kuzari can be included among those who see no reason for “אֵין מִקְרָא יוֹצֵא מִידֵי פְּשׁוּטוֹ” to inherently exclude the beginning of Bereishis.

Academic Approach and Emunas Chachamim

נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתים שבתורה כיון שהגיע "לאת ה' אלהיך תירא" (דברים י) פירוש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתים שדרשת מה תהא עליהן? אמר להם, "כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה, כך אני מקבל שכר על פרישה" עד שבא ר"ע ודרש את ה' אלהיך תירא" לרבות תלמידי חכמים. (פסחים כב:ב

Just as we are expected to fear God, we are expected to fear Torah Scholars, Talmidei Chachamim.

Recently at the Rationalist Judaism Blog it was written:

Academic study analyzes the words of Torah scholars over the ages with the aid of examining the context in which they were written. What societal, cultural, intellectual, political factors could have been involved, if any?...If we are talking about reaching historical truth, then I consider the academic method far superior. (rationalistjudaism.com/2009/08/academic-vs-traditionalist-studies.html)

In my estimation this runs afoul of the principle of fearing Torah Sages.

The problem is not in recognizing that a Talmid Chacham holds a problematic view, it is treating our Sages in a casual manner in which they are just like anyone else. The concept that learning Torah l'shma makes a scholar "great and exalts him above all things" (Avos 6:1, from the Artscroll Siddur) is exchanged for a view in which their views and opinions can be evaluated with the same suppositions we would use for any other shmo. One may find that such suppositions are correct on occasion, but to assume that they will be as useful as they are in a general context is not "awe".

The entire endeavor to "discover" a controversial position in the teachings of a Torah scholar doesn't strike me as reflecting awe of our Sage either. The Rambam writes "whenever the words of a person can be interpreted in such a manner that they agree with fully established facts, it is the duty of every educated and honest man to do so." (Guide 3:14, Freidlander translation). While I don't suspect that the Rambam would demand that only a necessary inference should establish that an erroneous position was held, to cull dispersed writings to reveal an non-obvious error (while conceding that theoretically one's entire position could crash down like house of cards by the revelation of a single statement to the contrary) is not in anyway consistent with the Rambam's maxim.

If we are to claim that we accept Judaism, such an acceptance should impact how we evaluate questions pertaining to Judaism. Conflict is inevitable since, “the result of secular research and study will not always coincide with the truths of Judaism, for the simple reason that they do not proceed from the axiomatic premises of Jewish truth.” (Torah Im Derech Eretz, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch zt’l, page 415)." To apply the principles generally utilized in the humanities to those we view as atypical in their wisdom and piety is to commit the fallacy of Hasty Generalization (or betray that one does not view them as atypical in wisdom and piety). The fact that occasionally such hasty generalizations may turn out correct doesn't negate the fallacy of the method.

Stalin and Purim

(Last year I posted the following comment [which I have edited very little] at Cross-Currents:)

Other times, the Adar coincidences are more obviously meaningful, clearly linked to Purim. A few Adars ago, a striking irony emerged from a new book about Joseph Stalin. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2008/03/14/accidents-dont-happen/#comment-363773

Well I had heard this before but felt like I should do a little research to try to confirm it, not to second guess Rabbi Shafran but… At first the only date which seemed to pop up was the 5th of March, the day he actually died, but then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2793501.stm

The night of 28 February began in the usual manner for Stalin and his closest political circle, Lavrenty Beria, Nikita Khrushchev, Nikolai Bulganin and Georgi Malenkov. They watched a film in the Kremlin then retired to Stalin’s country home, 10 minutes outside Moscow, for yet another night of feasting. By the early hours of 1 March, Stalin’s guests had gone back to their homes in Moscow…..The guards began to get worried, but no one dared to go into his rooms. They had no right to disturb Stalin unless invited into his presence personally. At 6.30 a light came on in Stalin’s rooms, and the guards relaxed a little. But by the time 10 o’clock had chimed they were petrified. Lozgachev was finally sent in to check on Stalin…..The guards rushed to call Stalin’s drinking companions, the Politburo.

And from the Library of Congress website:

Stalin collapsed on March 1, 1953, and remained unconscious until he died on March 5. Khrushchev said he didn’t receive immediate medical care because Stalin’s advisers at first thought he was drunk and would regain consciousness. “He was on the floor and they brought him [up] on the sofa,” said Khrushchev. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0304/post-stalin.html

It does appear that Stalin “began” dying on March 1st after a drinking party, and it seems that March first that year was in fact Purim:
http://www.hebcal.com/converter/?gd=1&gm=3&gy=1953&g2h=Compute+Hebrew+Date&hd=10&hm=Adar2&hy=5768
Viewed through the lens of emunah we can see the hashgacha.


***After scheduling this to appear a few days later to give more time for the prior post, it occurred to me that I scheduled it to appear on March 1, the 56th anniversary of the events in the post on the solar calendar. 

(Minor Edits 2/22/18)