Why bother acting Jewish?
From the reactions sparked by the Divrei Chaim's post (linked to in http://kallahmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/10/would-you-consider-25-risk-good-odds.html)
it seems to me that there are many people who identify as Orthodox, who likely spend the extra money on kosher meat, abstain from work on Shabbos, and even crack open a Gemara who seem to regard the religion as something substandard. Now I am not saying that there are no problems in the frum community. There certainly are problems that should be recognized so that they can be addressed. But as for the Jewish faith, that is something that transcends all mutations of time and circumstances. The Torah was true when the people believed the world was flat, and the Torah remains true when people believe it be round. It is not something that can be superseded by the changes in theories of science, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, or politics. Should there be a contradiction between what we take the Torah to mean and what we perceive in the world, then it is up to us to deepen our understanding. To respond to such contradictions by saying that Chazal erred because they were not as advanced as we are with all out technology, etc., is arrogance getting in the way of truth.
If I truly did not believe that Torah is of Divine origin and that the Mesorah of Torah sheBa'al Peh is equally true, then I could make life a lot easier by giving up the restrictions of Shabbos, kashrus, not to mention a number of others that probably top people's list. We don't keep kashrus for the sake of health or because kosher food tastes better. After all, lobster, shrimp, crab, and oysters are considered delicacies. And the supply of kosher substitutes for such indicate that there is something appealing in their taste. But we don't pick up a lobster to boil for dinner because that is one of the things we are forbidden to eat. That's it. It's not rational; it's not scientific; it hardly sounds enlightened. Nevertheless, that is the case. If I didn't believe in Torah min Hashamayim and the obligation of observing all the derabanans, I hardly think I would let these things dictate so much of my life. I also would wonder at anyone who thinks thus devoting hours to study of texts he would consider less valid than secular works of science or philosophy.
Now, let me clarify, I am no newly minted seminary girl. I earned a PhD in English in an environment where the assumption was that religious faith died over a century ago. So a lot of very smart people don't believe that Hashem created the world, lead the Jews out of Egypt, and gave them the Torah on Sinai. That's their opinion, and they are wrong. This is not a debatable issue like gun control laws or tariffs. On certain things everyone's opinion is not equally valid.
But the one right or wrong answer does not apply to pshat -- the literal interpretation of a Biblical text. We have a concept that there shivim panim laTorah -- 70 facets to the Torah. That would still not limit the possible interpretations to 70. There are so many approaches to the pshat of Torah that the super commentaries on Rashi alone number over 300.
I can come up with a pshat that is plausible. But there are, nevertheless, limits to what would constitute a Torah true pshat. When we were encouraged in Michallah to interpret the texts for ourselves, we were still given certain limits. One was not to contradict a Rishon. Yes, people like Ibn Ezra did do it. But when approaching Torah, one have enough humility to recognize that the average Joe or Jill simply is not on the caliber of Ibn Ezra. So the fact that he could doesn't mean I could. Would you attempt a quadruple jump just because you saw an ice skater do it? Do you realize how many years of practice that skater put in to get to that point? To just go out on the ice for the first time and think oneself as capable as a gold medalist would be ludicrous. Yet people have the arrogance to say, well, he did, so how can you tell me, I can't. The fact is that most people will not succeed at a quadruple jump even after years of practice, so the few who do should be regarded as exceptional.
It is perfectly possible to come up with a pshat that does not conform to the Midrashic interpretation, for Midrash is usually not so much about historical events so much as greater lessons. Those who believe there is nothing more to Midrash than what is presented in the Little Midrash Says need to deepen their appreciation with greater study. The Maharal's writings offer many insights into Midrashic meaning. I mentioned before the 70 facets and the multiple meanings that could be found in pshat, but there are yet further levels of meaning in the orchard of Torah. It is called a PaRDeS becaue it contains pshat, as well as remez, drash, and sod. Most of us will never get beyond the level of pshat to explore the further depths of hints, homiletics, and secrets. But our lack of understanding is our own failure. We are not smarter than Chazal. We are stuck on the edge of a the shore with only a limited view of the sea, while they were able to fathom the true depths of the ocean.
If I didn't believe that I really would find it pointless to live as a Jew. Yes, I know that some people find appeal in ethnicity and cherish the coming together of family in Jewish traditions. But you could find similar dynamics in other ethnic groups, such as Greek or Italians-Americans. For me, there has to be a greater truth than merely keeping up tradition for its own sake.
it seems to me that there are many people who identify as Orthodox, who likely spend the extra money on kosher meat, abstain from work on Shabbos, and even crack open a Gemara who seem to regard the religion as something substandard. Now I am not saying that there are no problems in the frum community. There certainly are problems that should be recognized so that they can be addressed. But as for the Jewish faith, that is something that transcends all mutations of time and circumstances. The Torah was true when the people believed the world was flat, and the Torah remains true when people believe it be round. It is not something that can be superseded by the changes in theories of science, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, or politics. Should there be a contradiction between what we take the Torah to mean and what we perceive in the world, then it is up to us to deepen our understanding. To respond to such contradictions by saying that Chazal erred because they were not as advanced as we are with all out technology, etc., is arrogance getting in the way of truth.
If I truly did not believe that Torah is of Divine origin and that the Mesorah of Torah sheBa'al Peh is equally true, then I could make life a lot easier by giving up the restrictions of Shabbos, kashrus, not to mention a number of others that probably top people's list. We don't keep kashrus for the sake of health or because kosher food tastes better. After all, lobster, shrimp, crab, and oysters are considered delicacies. And the supply of kosher substitutes for such indicate that there is something appealing in their taste. But we don't pick up a lobster to boil for dinner because that is one of the things we are forbidden to eat. That's it. It's not rational; it's not scientific; it hardly sounds enlightened. Nevertheless, that is the case. If I didn't believe in Torah min Hashamayim and the obligation of observing all the derabanans, I hardly think I would let these things dictate so much of my life. I also would wonder at anyone who thinks thus devoting hours to study of texts he would consider less valid than secular works of science or philosophy.
Now, let me clarify, I am no newly minted seminary girl. I earned a PhD in English in an environment where the assumption was that religious faith died over a century ago. So a lot of very smart people don't believe that Hashem created the world, lead the Jews out of Egypt, and gave them the Torah on Sinai. That's their opinion, and they are wrong. This is not a debatable issue like gun control laws or tariffs. On certain things everyone's opinion is not equally valid.
But the one right or wrong answer does not apply to pshat -- the literal interpretation of a Biblical text. We have a concept that there shivim panim laTorah -- 70 facets to the Torah. That would still not limit the possible interpretations to 70. There are so many approaches to the pshat of Torah that the super commentaries on Rashi alone number over 300.
I can come up with a pshat that is plausible. But there are, nevertheless, limits to what would constitute a Torah true pshat. When we were encouraged in Michallah to interpret the texts for ourselves, we were still given certain limits. One was not to contradict a Rishon. Yes, people like Ibn Ezra did do it. But when approaching Torah, one have enough humility to recognize that the average Joe or Jill simply is not on the caliber of Ibn Ezra. So the fact that he could doesn't mean I could. Would you attempt a quadruple jump just because you saw an ice skater do it? Do you realize how many years of practice that skater put in to get to that point? To just go out on the ice for the first time and think oneself as capable as a gold medalist would be ludicrous. Yet people have the arrogance to say, well, he did, so how can you tell me, I can't. The fact is that most people will not succeed at a quadruple jump even after years of practice, so the few who do should be regarded as exceptional.
It is perfectly possible to come up with a pshat that does not conform to the Midrashic interpretation, for Midrash is usually not so much about historical events so much as greater lessons. Those who believe there is nothing more to Midrash than what is presented in the Little Midrash Says need to deepen their appreciation with greater study. The Maharal's writings offer many insights into Midrashic meaning. I mentioned before the 70 facets and the multiple meanings that could be found in pshat, but there are yet further levels of meaning in the orchard of Torah. It is called a PaRDeS becaue it contains pshat, as well as remez, drash, and sod. Most of us will never get beyond the level of pshat to explore the further depths of hints, homiletics, and secrets. But our lack of understanding is our own failure. We are not smarter than Chazal. We are stuck on the edge of a the shore with only a limited view of the sea, while they were able to fathom the true depths of the ocean.
If I didn't believe that I really would find it pointless to live as a Jew. Yes, I know that some people find appeal in ethnicity and cherish the coming together of family in Jewish traditions. But you could find similar dynamics in other ethnic groups, such as Greek or Italians-Americans. For me, there has to be a greater truth than merely keeping up tradition for its own sake.
Comments
if you mean me, then i don't mind if you identify me by name.
"To respond to such contradictions by saying that Chazal erred because they were not as advanced as we are with all out technology, etc., is arrogance getting in the way of truth."
and rav shamshon refael hirsh, as we all know, was a supremely arrogant individual. and you are not arrogant in the slightest in dismissing him and other Orthodox rabbis who disagree with you as arrogant and wrong.
good to know.
btw, i don't believe that after all this you really understand what my position is. i think that you are mistakenly attributing positions to me. that is something that happened a lot on that thread, imho. and has happened quite often in the past on that blog, imho.
kol tuv,
josh
are you admitting that Ibn Ezra argues on Chazal, or are you still maintaining that he is allegorizing?
kt,
josh
You're right that there is a difference between virtuoso Biblical interpretation and amateur hour but bear in mind two things: some really are virtuosos and, two, even amateurs can still put on a pair of skates and try their best. The world isn't destroyed by a bad quadruple jump.
Lehavdil, I have also studied Shakespeare, and I know that I am no Shakespeare. And, to paraphrase the line from the 1988 debate, it is safe to say anyone alive today, "You are no Ibn Ezra."
Will a quadruple jump executed by an amateur kill anyone? Of course not, though some bones may break. The amateur will not succeed, and if he insists his half jump is the same as the medalist's accomplishment, then he is deluding himself.
so in other words, he is arguing on them in that they thought X was peshat, and he maintains X was derash?
or are you saying that they say X, and while everyone thought they were saying peshat, really they were saying derash, or some homiletic meaning? if so, he is not really arguing.
at times in the preceding conversation at Divrei Chaim, it seemed that you were saying the former, and at times the latter. which one is it?
if the former, then how do you then insist that all of the midrashim are misinai, and this is the approach taken by meforshim?
if the latter, then this is a standard chareidi approach, and was propounded by rabbi chaim b. on his blog. and ibn ezra is saying the same as maharal, in every instance. (i doubt this is the case.)
since you were musing based on the conversation there, it stood to reason that you were reacting to my remarks, and had me in mind. i am glad if you are not, of course.
kol tuv,
josh
As to Ibn Ezra's offering a pshat that is not consistent with Chazal, I would put it as follows: When Chazal say X on a pasuk, Ibn Ezra sometimes maintains that it does not work as pshat. That is not tantamount to saying there is absolutely no merit, credence, or meaning in X; rather that what Ibn Ezra suggests fits the simple meaning.
This is echoed by the Ibn Ezra himself in his poetic hakdamah -- "ba'avur haderash hapshat einena sarah, ki shivi'im panim laTorah."
Pshat does not contradict derash because they operate on different levels.
I guess he was a chareidi too!
so why is only Ibn Ezra allowed to do this? a certain fellow was recently effectively called an oisvorf for saying that a gemara which read a particular pasuk a certain way was engaging in midrash, rather than peshat. why would you say that only ibn ezra is able to do *this*? indeed, you yourself did this in interpreting a flat earth Chazal (which wasn't really a Chazal, but whatever.) indeed, where chareidim do this every day? why is this arrogance? and why is it arrogance for this person and not for you?
kt,
josh
kt,
josh
that is NOT what that fellow said. though given the trend on that blog of reading into others' words and criticizing them, it should not surprise me.
the claim was that Chazal did not *mean* the meaning being attributed to them by a late acharon (/blog commenter). rather, that they were engaged in midrash, and that their midrash aggada had meaning. just not the meaning being ascribed to it by the blog commenter. and that various Rishonim and acharonim gave a similar view of the peshat of the pasuk is important, in countering the assertion that this is a newfangled statement about peshat that goes against all midrashim and gemaras.
an entirely SEPARATE point was that even IF it were an argument with Chazal about the peshat meaning of a pasuk, this is permitted. that is a hashkafic matter of dispute. but it seems that it has been conflated. that was part of why i was requesting clarification.
at any rate, so it is a matter of intent and attitude to do what Ibn Ezra did. if so, then why should it be a matter of how skilled the person is at Biblical interpretation? it is *intent* rather than stature.
and there still hasn't been an answer on how Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch was arrogant.
kt,
josh
Josh, you show yourself to be the close-minded one here. The implication of the phrase above is, "if chareidim do it, it must be wrong." Honestly, I have no political agenda. I am hardly a chareidi conformist, but I would be open-minded enough not to dismiss out of hand something as wrong solely because "chareidim do" it.
Here, you seem to be falling into the straw man logical fallacy. You avert the question of whether or not it is correct to dismiss what Chazal say by turning around and saying, "but that is what chareidim do." So what? Do you make a point of wearing jeans on Shabbos just to prove that you are not chareidi?
You seem to be demanding capitulation to your point solely on the basis of your particular classification of chareidi and whatever camp you like to identify with. Perhaps that is also a false dilemma, along the lines of "you are either with me, or you are chareidi."
If you would have written this in an essay, I would have you revise it altogether. Whatever you are trying to say is about as clear as tar.
As for R' Hirsch, where did this come from? I don't remember bringing him up at all. Honestly, I have not studied Hirsch. So I cannot offer you a truly informed opinion about his approach, only a very superficial impression. And despite certain insinuations, I do not like to commit to a position if I feel I am not well-informed. You want to learn pshat differently from Hirsch, go right ahead. Just don't say it around a die-hard Yekke ;-).
On meaning and fixity, I can see things in Shakespeare that are my own projections. In other words, I can find something he never intended. In lit crit, that does not make my reader response invalid because authorial intentions are not, necessarily the be-all-and-end-all. But Torah is different because we are not just talking about authors who had a way with words and a knack for timeless themes. There are depths of meaning there by intent. So when we get to another layer of meaning, I believe we are discovering rather than projecting.
Ah, but a blogger's discovery of meaning in Chazal via the lens of later Torah luminaries is somehow objectionable in your view. It is a far more worthwhile pursuit, apparently, to point out how Chazal clearly don't pass muster with respect to modern science.
But I forgot, if charidim hold Chazal in high esteem, it must be correct to do the opposite.
no, it is not. in fact, i do the same myself. again, reading false implications into the words of others. a bad habit, imho.
what i *meant* was that chaim b. said how ibn ezra was a chareidi. and you both think that everything chareidim do is legitimate. so as a rhetorical device, label it chareidi. and then ask why that fellow doing something so chareidi would be wrong.
"Honestly, I have no political agenda. I am hardly a chareidi conformist, but I would be open-minded enough not to dismiss out of hand something as wrong solely because "chareidim do" it."
you think you have no agenda. but you also appear to think that the approach and limits for seminary girls is the be-all and end-all of parshanut, and that the *only* legitimate approach is that of Maharal.
the rest of that comment does not require answer, because it is based on reading into me a position that i did not maintain.
kt,
josh
that it is not Josh vs. Chazal, but Josh vs. "rbc" in understanding Chazal.
"As for R' Hirsch, where did this come from? I don't remember bringing him up at all. Honestly, I have not studied Hirsch."
And yet, you labeled him arrogant. you did so because you thought, in your ignorance (stemming from not having studied Hirsch), that Maharal is the only legitimate approach.
that is, you wrote:
" Should there be a contradiction between what we take the Torah to mean and what we perceive in the world, then it is up to us to deepen our understanding. To respond to such contradictions by saying that Chazal erred because they were not as advanced as we are with all out technology, etc., is arrogance getting in the way of truth."
but Rav Hirsch said that Chazal were working off the science of the time, and so could be mistaken about science. thus, in trying to label me and others like me arrogant, you labeled Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch arrogant.
To see an expansion of my ideas on the matter (which is not to label Chazal as silly!, which is what is being *ascribed*), as well as how it fits with Rav Hirsch's ideas, see this post at Rationalist Judaism.
kt,
josh
no, but it is that particular blogger's discovery of meaning, and that is not (necessarily) the same as Chazal. arguing with that meaning is arguing with that blogger, not arguing with Chazal.
"But I forgot, if charidim hold Chazal in high esteem, it must be correct to do the opposite."
see that linked post at Rationalist Judaism, where it should be clear that from my perspective, to say that Chazal relied on contemporary science, and thus erred, is not to hold them in *low* esteem. rather, just the opposite!
however, if *you* were to say this, you would be holding them in low esteem. therefore, what you did was attribute a view to me, and then criticize it. this is par for the course, unfortunately.
but kol tuv,
josh
One criteria does not preclude the other.
>>>what i *meant* was that chaim b. said how ibn ezra was a chareidi. and you both think that everything chareidim do is legitimate. so as a rhetorical device, label it chareidi.
I was writing tongue in cheek because it is you, Josh, who misrerpresent any idea you disagree with as "chareidi" (as if that were some form of pejoritive), even where those views accord with what YU Roshei Yeshiva hold, a phenomenon I discussed here:
http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/07/difference-between-yeshiva-university.html
well, i was also writing tongue-in-cheek, at least in the comments here, as i noted. i don't believe i use "chareidi" in the general case as a pejorative. i can well believe that *you* believe this of me. i DO on occasion note that note *every* chareidi belief and ideal is one that i maintain, or hold to be a good thing.
"One criteria does not preclude the other."
yes it does. what happened was that the post said Ibn Ezra can do X but not us. and then went on to define what Ibn Ezra is doing as so frum and innocuous as to render the first statement silly. i think this was because of lack of consistency, in terms of *really* thinking that Ibn Ezra is quite the rebel, but not wanting to grant me ground and precedent and so turning him into a "chareidi", who takes exactly the same approach as Maharal. (see by the way this post and linked article on Rationalist Judaism, as to whether Maharal was a creative genius or unoriginal redactor.)
At any rate, Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch is still waiting for his apology. :)
kt,
josh
Whoa, talk about a hasty generalization! That is a completely unfounded assumption on your part. I am unconcerned with which particular label you would care to use to classify a person or a thought. If you think I express my opinions out of a misguided attempt to conform to chareidi culture, then you simply do not understand my position.
I love the literature of the 19th century, but you have to admit that the way they considered themselves thoroughly advanced and modern seems utterly quaint today. The science of today is far beyond that of R' Hirsch's day. What they considered the last word then is passe now. I am very surprised you would pick a figure like R' Hirsch of all people. As I have said, I haven't studied his work, but I do know that his linguistics are considered questionable by modern Biblical scholars. I would hardly think the Ibn Ezra would approve your choice of whom to pin your argument on. Do you buy into every last thing that R' Hirsch says? I highly doubt it. But that's fine. A very late acharon of that type does not have the authority of a rishon. I can argue on what he says, and you can argue on what he says.
"but you also appear to think that the approach and limits for seminary girls is the be-all and end-all of parshanut, and that the *only* legitimate approach is that of Maharal".
Do I detect shades of male chauvinism here, Josh? Another ad hominem attack with the derisive "seminary girl." You are obviously losing ground by resorting to that and deliberately misrepresenting my position. I thought I made it clear to you that there are many possible approaches to pshat. So how could I ever claim there is only one? Why would I have bothered devoting so much time to studying Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, Ralbag, and co. on top of Rashi if there is only one valid approach to the text???? No, I never said any such thing. What I said is that the meaning of Torah is NOT LIMITED to pshat. And instead of throwing out the Chazals that don't immediately appeal to your sense of reason, you can open your eyes to interpretations such as those offered in Maharal to gain some appreciation.
Really, you act like someone who enters a rose garden holding his nose firmly closed. Then you declare that the sole virtue of the rose is its appearance.
It is perfectly permissible to say he erred; saying that about Chazal, on the other hand, is far more problematic. You can say that scientific principles were perceived differently in their day than they are now, but it does not follow that they were wrong in what they said. They were not teaching biology, geology, or chemistry, but Torah.
of course i don't. (though some aspects of his theory, in triliteral roots built up from biliteral roots, i do think have merit.) but he is an example of someone from an Orthodox school of thought that maintains this. another example is rav hertzog. and yet, you clearly insinuated that those who hold this approach are arrogant, and perhaps that they should not even bother being Jewish (as per the title of your post).
maharal is a legitimate approach (and i agree with him in certain limited instances); so is that of rav hirsch. however, it seems to me that in your ignorance of the existence of entirely valid competing approaches to Chazal and science, you think that the *only* legitimate approach that one may maintain is that of Maharal. and that is why you considered me quasi-Reform, or a great heretic. i get that you are enamored by one approach. that doesn't mean i have to be, or that if i am not, i am an arrogant heretic.
and *that* was the overall implication of your post, whether you intended it or not.
"Do I detect shades of male chauvinism here, Josh? Another ad hominem attack with the derisive "seminary girl.""
no, not male chauvinism. but i do think that a lot of what they teach in girls' high schools is fluff. and i do think that seminaries work with immediate post-high school students, and often have a very "frummy" hashkafa when it comes to matters like this.
just as one should not learn midrashim, or rashi, as an adult in the same way one learned it in 6th grade, perhaps one should not learn it many years down the line the same way one learned it in seminary. (after my year in Israel, i learned a lot more, and attended several undergraduate and graduate courses in parshanut.) frankly, if *I* were teaching in seminary, i would not expect enough of a background for them to start arguing with rishonim. better to get a solid grounding first, and learn the patterns from the experts.
but the most creative and intelligent seminary girl does not hold a candle to, e.g., Dr. Richard Steiner.
"You are obviously losing ground by resorting to that and deliberately misrepresenting my position."
obviously. keep repeating this, and keep throwing out those accusations to try to undermine me. that is the best way to win an argument!
"And instead of throwing out the Chazals that don't immediately appeal to your sense of reason, you can open your eyes to interpretations such as those offered in Maharal to gain some appreciation."
i am ready to give up. my strong sense it that you are not understanding what i am saying.
i don't *always* adopt maharal's approach, when i believe that the application of the approach is FALSE. if Chazal intended something literally, and it seems this is so based on an understanding of the contemporary beliefs, then making up a new explanation and saying that Chazal *meant* that, is to falsify Chazal. we *lose* Chazal's true intent, and we add to Chazal an idea they never maintained.
kt,
josh
But this is just what Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch said!!!! It is Ariella against Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch about whether this is problematic. Feel free to maintain, according to your Maharal-based hashkafot, that one may not say it. But there is a counter-masorah that I subscribe to.
Another person who maintains this: Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a rosh yeshiva at YU. He puts it as that Chazal's only error was in saying "yesh chochma bagoyim taamin."
You may maintain that such an approach is problematic, to hold about Chazal. I disagree, and I have major Orthodox figures to back me up. So don't call me arrogant. That is what is arrogant, IMHO.
kt,
jos
As for R' Tendler's comment, that quote does nothing to bolster your argument whatsoever.
So here it is, Josh. I have the arrogance to say that R' Hirsch was not right about everything. I have the arrogance to say that *YOU* are not right about everything. I have the honesty to say that *I* am not right about everything, yet I am still right about this: your lack of appreciation of the wisdom of Chazal does not reflect a failing on their part.
you assume that you have some infallible insight into knowing what Chazal meant, and that we, (no doubt corrupted by seminary) haven't a clue. So you have a true understanding of authorial intentions, and anyone who differs from your position is positing something that isn't there. Now there's a classic instance of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, AKA begging the question.
You assume *YOU* *KNOW* just what Chazal *MEANT* and, therefore, your reading is the only correct one. Now, talk about arrogance! That is it.
why in the world not?! he is saying precisely the same thing as rav shamshon refael hirsch. he just had a clever way of saying it.
"But you would be beyond delusional to claim he is of the caliber of a rishon or even one of the truly great acharonim."
and a good many Rishonim maintain that Chazal can be wrong in science.
"So here it is, Josh. I have the arrogance to say that R' Hirsch was not right about everything. I have the arrogance to say that *YOU* are not right about everything."
there is, however, a difference between saying "not right" and "an arrogant heretic."
kt,
josh
who said it was a failing? and who says this is a lack of appreciation of the wisdom of Chazal? the latter assertion you made is almost certainly dependent on the truth of the former; but you admitted that you may not always be right.
i do somewhat assume that. if Chazal talk about spontaneous generation entirely straightforwardly, and we know that the contemporary science was precisely that (looking at Aristotle), and all the Rishonim and early acharonim understood the gemara as precisely that, that some post-high school student who has been overstuffed with fluff (I'm only putting this in because you did) suddenly suggests that to understand the gemara kepshuto is wrong, and that really Chazal meant {INSERT FLUFF EXPLANATION HERE}, then yes, I am not going to take it so seriously; I have a lot of good reason to assume that the peshat is just as scientists of the time understood it, and just as people have understood it through the ages.
and that is not arrogant. and if it is, then i have such a chiyuv to be arrogant.
kol tuv,
josh
Now we escalate the insult from "seminary girl" to "some post-high school student who has been overstuffed with fluff." I would venture to guess that I am far more post-high school than you are. But please do go ahead and define "fluff" in your own terms.
What I have been saying is that there are Midrashim that do not always conform to the pshat reading, but that does not mean that they are mere flights of fancy worthy of ridicule. The assumption here is that Chazal's intelligence was not inferior to yours or mine, but quite the contrary. Is that point clear?
it probably would depend on how you define "more". i would not venture this.
"but that does not mean that they are mere flights of fancy worthy of ridicule."
and once again you are attributing to me something i never said. i never said it was a flight of fancy! i said it was a statement based on the scientific cutting edge of their day.
i never said that it was worthy of ridicule! that they relied on cutting edge science is worthy of respect!
"The assumption here is that Chazal's intelligence was not inferior to yours or mine, but quite the contrary."
and i assume the same. you seem to be imputing to me an opposite position. which you have consistently done. good rhetoric!
it probably would depend on how you define "more". i would not venture this.
"but that does not mean that they are mere flights of fancy worthy of ridicule."
and once again you are attributing to me something i never said. i never said it was a flight of fancy! i said it was a statement based on the scientific cutting edge of their day.
i never said that it was worthy of ridicule! that they relied on cutting edge science is worthy of respect!
"The assumption here is that Chazal's intelligence was not inferior to yours or mine, but quite the contrary."
and i assume the same. you seem to be imputing to me an opposite position. which you have consistently done. good rhetoric!
yes, also not flights of fancy. rather, incredibly deep readings into the text, which often has an important homiletic meaning as well -- or as I typically take it, developing aspects of the *theme* already found in the regular Biblical text. certainly worthy or respect. even worthy of respect if they meant it as peshat and i don't think that it is true as peshat. (and that since it was never intended as homily, it would be entirely discarded.) one can disagree respectfully.
i think highly of Aristotle, but i think he was wrong of a great many things. the same of Lamarck.
this, i think, should be my final comment here. here are my closing thoughts. this is my reading of the situation:
both you and chaim b. wrote posts which you thought were merely reflective and inspiring. however, there were aspects of them which were horribly offensive and insulting, not to mention inaccurate. probably due to social conditioning, you did not anticipate that it would be taken as so offensive, and were insulted in turn as the strength of the response. sort of like how wolfish musings reported recently on a tznius lecture where the choices given were "princess" or "prostitute." the difference here is that there is a comment section for the insulted parties to issue a rejoinder.
kt,
What I mean by ridicule is equating Bet is for Bracha with C is for Cookie. Yes, the Ibn Ezra did not care for making assumptions about the letter. But he was making a point from a perspective of what is obvious in a literal sense. The Maharal defends the association of B for bracha with cogent arguments. As you have the advantage of living after the Maharal, you could incorporate his views before drawing your conclusion.
I don't know what constitutes research for your field of study, but in mine, we were supposed to look up the observations and comments of those who addressed the works before us. For example, to simply take a New Critical approach and ignore the developments of structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, and new historicism would not be respectable. Even biographies of writers who lived long ago get updated, so someone writing on Charlotte Bronte, for example, would not be worth her mettle is she relied solely on Elizabeth Gaskell's biography. Yes, there is much of use in it, and it, certainly, has been mined by later writers. But it is not the very last word.
Similarly, you simply cannot equate yourself with Ibn Ezra -- not just because of his particular abilities but because of the context and the arguments that came after him.
i reiterate: your post was extremely offensive and ill-informed.
kol tuv,
josh
I really don't understand what you are saying here. On the one hand you say midrash can be appreciated for something beyond pshat. On the other hand, you seem to imply that still it WAS meant as pshat, which is what gives you license to disagree.
I've been over the point that some Midrashim simply cannot be taken as establishing a historic fact. Just as TaNaCh is not only concerned with history, the meforshim and midrashim shed light on various views.
But, Josh, after all these arguments, you seem to be saying, "Your challenging my position hurts my feelings." Yet, you are free to denigrate others for views you class as "chareidi" or appropriate to a "seminary girl." A double standard?
you drew me back in! *you've* been over the point. the fact that you assert this does not mean that it has been proven to my satisfaction. your example was:
"There are ,for example, various opinions on what the fruit of the eitz hada'as was. It a literal sense, it could not be a fig, and grapes, and wheat all at the same time."
so? ever heard of a machlokes? how do you know that person X does not maintain X literally, Y maintain Y literally, and Z maintain Z literally?! it is only because of very particular concepts of elu veElu that one must think they all must be true literally. there is a difference between having been *intended* literally and being true historically.
but this will be my last post. and i reiterate:
i could continue this indefinitely, but there is no point, because it would continue indefinitely.
and though you may not have realized it at the time you posted it, your post was horribly offensive.
kol tuv,
josh
In your latest barb (is that your parting shot?), you declare: "
so? ever heard of a machlokes? how do you know that person X does not maintain X literally, Y maintain Y literally, and Z maintain Z literally?! it is only because of very particular concepts of elu veElu that one must think they all must be true literally. there is a difference between having been *intended* literally and being true historically."
Obviously, this was a machlokes. The one who opines grapes has his reasons for saying so, and so does the one who says figs, etc. In point of fact, the fruit could not have been all of them. But the point here is not to arrive at THE TRUTH of what the botanical classification of the eitz hada'as. There are various truths about the motivations behind eating that fruit, and each view sheds some light on it. We don't have to box off each view as right or wrong. This is not a question of psak halacha, and it need by neatly settled into zeros and ones.
You bring to mind the personality of Dilke that Keats immortalized in his letters. You are convinced you are already on the right track and refuse to see what is beyond your set path.
firstly, i never said "personally". you inserted that in there. it was offensive to many, many people who share this same hashkafa. and me amongst them.
but what if i would put a link to *this* post and say "some people are idiots"? follow the link, read the comments, and one can make inferences. the same as chaim b. in his post cast aspersions on rabbi willig and his son, besides Modern Orthodoxy in general, and when called on it, said that he never referred to Rabbi Willig or his son by name. bull.
whether or not the Etz Hadaas conflicting midrashim were intended literally or allegorically, the "proof" you provided was nonsense. literalness is a measure of intent, while historicity is a measure of truth. *machlokes* does not indicate proof that not all midrashim are intended literally, which is what you either stated or strongly implied, above.
to myself: stop it, josh! it is stupid to continue this conversation.
kt,
josh
you wrote:
"There are numerous Midrashim cholkim, so, obviously, they could not all have fit in a literal, historical sense."
this conflates the two concepts, of literal and historical. and it is not "obvious" in the slightest.
and to close:
the post you wrote was horribly offensive.
kt,
josh
Please see R' Ahron Soloveitchik's Torah u'Mada essay for an explanation of this gemara that does not use the Slifkin/Josh way out of "Chazal were wrong." Not just fluff brains, but gedolei yisrael even from the Centrist Orthodox camp offer different answers. The fact that greater minds than ours have avoided a certain answer in favor of other approaches certainly should give one pause.
Pointing out where we disagree with certain point of views -- without pointing fingers -- is considered offensive in your book. But calling my position and arguments "Fluff" and insinuating they are simple "chareidi" conformist thinking is perfectly fine in the course of argument. Again the double standard.
Pointing out where we disagree with certain point of views -- without pointing fingers -- is considered offensive in your book. But calling my position and arguments "Fluff" and insinuating they are simple "chareidi" conformist thinking is perfectly fine in the course of argument. Again the double standard.
no, that is a definition of the terms. look them up in a dictionary.
of course different ways of interpreting this are possible. (and i have at least one gemara to back up my assumption, namely that of pilegesh begivah.) your "proof" made an assumption the other way. since it is debatable, it is no proof. it is not "obvious", as you asserted.
"Pointing out where we disagree with certain point of views -- without pointing fingers -- is considered offensive in your book."
no. saying that we disagree is not offensive. saying that those with whom we disagree are "arrogant", and should not bother "acting" Jewish; and falsely imputing that they do not believe in Torah min Hashamayim, and Torah sheBaal Peh; and that they only "keep up tradition for appearances sake" -- that is beyond offensive.
do you see how what you did is more than just "Pointing out where we disagree with certain point of views -- without pointing fingers"?
again, to repeat:
this post is extremely offensive. i am not surprised that you don't see it as offensive. that is why you posted it. you did not mean to offend. but it is horribly offensive nonetheless.
kol tuv,
josh
i *know* i am being "mean", and plainspoken. (though i don't like your summary of what i am saying.) but don't be surprised when you get a harsh response, when you initiate by posting a horribly offensive post.
Truth is not limited to historical or concrete facts. If so the word would have no place in the sentence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I suppose the drafters of the constitution failed to check with the TRUE meaning of the word "truth" -- for your definition MUST be the ONLY correct one.
Again, your final argument -- that you find the post offensive -- is not a logical one. Do you not believe in my constitutional right to free speech? You consider yourself to have the right to criticize the views of Chazal, but no one has the right to criticize yours? What makes you so infallible as to be above any possible reproach? Now that's clearly arrogance.
Perhaps I find some of your posts offensive. Perhaps I find a number of posts in the world offensive. That does not mean I have the right to demand they retract their positions. I have never had the chutzpah to tell a blogger to remove a post because I find it offensive. I can argue the point or ignore the post, but the idea of the "free and open exchange of ideas and of opinions," as Bob Grant used to say, is to allow people to voice opinions --even if they don't don't correspond to yours, and even if they are critical of positions your have publicly espoused.
You publicly proclaim a position, you better be prepared to back it up and to take the heat that may come from others. Don't play with fire if you cry at getting burned. Yes, that sounds mean. But really, Josh, I can't believe that you would pull such a ridiculous appeal to emotions as "this is offensive to me and others I feel I represent; therefore, you should not have said it."
Are you familiar with Voltaire's quote on disagreeing with someone but defending their right to say it?
Also are you familiar with Flatland? Those who confine themselves to 2 dimensions consider the third dimension to be a fabrication -- a deviation from their limited truth. Hamevin yavin.
no, i was saying that you were taking my statement about vocabulary as an "assumption."
" If I were to be so childish to tally insult for insult, you would be way in the lead."
what happens, over and over again, is that you accuse me of making an insult, because you want me to be insulting you, and insulting chazal. you accused me falsely, more than once, of issuing insults. whether they were insults to chareidim or about male chauvinism.
"If I were to be so childish to tally insult for insult, you would be way in the lead."
yes, but this way, you get to act like you are not tallying insults, while at the same time tallying them. so you are saying you are acting childish?
"Again, your final argument -- that you find the post offensive -- is not a logical one. Do you not believe in my constitutional right to free speech?"
of course i do. however, i also have the right to call you on it, and point out to you that while you think you are being so righteous and frum, what you are doing is being extremely offensive. i am sure that you did not realize that you were being offensive, which is why i thought i should point it out to you. just as i pointed it out to chaim b.
"You publicly proclaim a position, you better be prepared to back it up and to take the heat that may come from others."
yes, and i am prepared to back it up. however, what you and chaim b. have done, many times, is misstate my position. i think that you have very poor reading comprehension. either that, or so much practice reading your ideas into meforshim, that it is easy to read other ideas into me.
"But really, Josh, I can't believe that you would pull such a ridiculous appeal to emotions"
this is not an appeal to emotions. rather, it is pointing out to you that you wrote an extremely obnoxious post, and that perhaps you should conduct a cheshbon hanefesh about it. false, as well as offensive.
kol tuv,
josh
if so, i don't see how you could summarize this as "Pointing out where we disagree with certain point of views -- without pointing fingers". or why you thought it was so irrational for me to be offended by it, such that you implied that i would be offended by merely that, that that is "considered offensive in your {=my} book."
you could leave it up if you want. i am not "demanding" that you take down the post. (another false attribution of a position to me. congratulations!) i am just noting how offensive and false it is, because i suspect that even now, you don't realize just how offensive and false it is. i would also note that so long as you do leave it up, it is an embarrassment to you, for being so false and obnoxious.
kol tuv,
josh
Your posture reminds me of a child who covers his/her ears with her hands, singing "I can't hear you, I can't hear you."
You can hardly call the post false when it is my own view. This is after all MY blog, and the title of the post is not, as you seem to take it, "The World According to Josh." Though that title would have a nice ring to it -- it is not what I was writing about at all. I was explaining *MY* view on faith, Torah, and shmiras hamitvos. You can have YOUR own view on faith, Torah, and shmiras hamitzvos. You can espouse and promote your own view as you wish. Freedom of expression grants you that right. And I may consider your view wrong, but that does mean I have a right to call you obnoxious.
As I said earlier, the fact that you resort to such ad hominem attacks indicates you have no logical arguments to offer to counter my position. It is really ironic that you, who position yourself as the product of an enlightened education, have never learned how to deal with views that differ from your own in a logical and civil manner. In my graduate seminars, there were many different views, some of which some people may find offensive. In such a context, one can point out the flaws in the argument, or one can simply remain silent. Crying out, "How dare you!" simply doesn't cut it in academic circles -- even if that is the instinctive reaction of the individual. Such a reaction would show the person to not be quite ready for prime time academia.
I can respond to an argument on the basis of its own terms without decrying it for being offensives. I have scored SAT essays since 2005. The score is based on set standards -- not my own view of what is right. So should a student write admiringly of Hitler, and some have, I cannot give the essay a score lower than it deserves based on its development simply because I find the moral outlook abhorrent.
Thus even if I would disagree with your assumptions, I would be able to concede a properly constructed argument. However, you do not employ valid rhetorical structures. Instead, you resort to circular reasoning. When I refuse the validity of your argument, you turn around and cry "Foul! This is offensive to me." Sorry, that does not make you he winner. It only shows you to be a poor sport.
if it is supposed to be a summary of my own position, then i can certainly call it false.
"I was explaining *MY* view on faith, Torah, and shmiras hamitvos."
yes, but in a way of "michlal hen ata shomea lav" and more.
"And I may consider your view wrong, but that does mean I have a right to call you obnoxious."
why not? if you are obnoxious, i have the right to call you such. and it is not because i consider your view wrong that i consider your actions obnoxious.
"As I said earlier, the fact that you resort to such ad hominem attacks indicates you have no logical arguments to offer to counter my position."
i have responded *many* times in this comment thread offering logical arguments. but what you have done, over and over, is try to declare that i have resorted to ad hominem attacks. you are anti-chareidi! you are a male chauvinist! sound familiar?
this is not that i am unable to respond. (although the paucity of your knowledge and understanding makes it difficult for me to give over an answer that you are able to understand, such that it is a futile effort.) however, this is beside the point. the point is that you have slandered me, in an offensive manner. and i have every right to point that out.
good shabbos,
josh
"this is a chareidi thing to do" coupled with "then this is a standard chareidi approach" is among your your early ones. Then you say, "what i *meant* was that chaim b. said how ibn ezra was a chareidi. and you both think that everything chareidim do is legitimate," which shows your making your own assumptions about what I or the DC think and building up your argument ineffectively from that point.
You exhibited male chauvinism by stating: "think that the approach and limits for **seminary girls** is the be-all and end-all of parshanut, and that the *only* legitimate approach is that of Maharal." The double stars are my own insertion.
As to ignorance without reference to gender: "it seems to me that in your ignorance of the existence of entirely valid competing approaches to Chazal and science, you think that the *only* legitimate approach that one may maintain is that of Maharal. and that is why you considered me quasi-Reform, or a great heretic."
In fact, you're the one with the either/or mindset where science is the ultiamte truth. I did not call you Reform but pointed out that I have seen the same argument in Reform approaches to TANaCh. If you equate that with heretical status, that is up to you. I never used the word.
Then you back away from the geneder-specific term and instead say, "some post-high school student who has been overstuffed with fluff" Still insulting, though.
Your comment of October 29, 2009 12:18:00 PM PDT was when you turned from any attempt to offer supoprt for you permission and resort solely to categorizing the post as "offensive" and then "obnoxious" and "false."
As I said in the previous comment, you misread this as all about you. However, I never put words in your mouth (I can't say you had the same courtesy.) All I did was express my own point of view, which is my right to have. And this is my own forum. If you want to argue against it, feel free to do so. But don't attempt to do it with unfounded stereotypes, insults, and a personal vendeta.