What exactly did Moses receive on Sinai?
Some, like R’ Akiva, advance a maximalist approach and claim that Moses received everything, while others, like R’ Ishmael, advance a minimalist approach and assert that Moses received merely general categories of the commandments — in other words, what Moses received on Sinai was but a minority of the report.
The account of the Tzelofchad quintet (Numbers 27:1-7) provides a remarkable insight into this divergence. Their father, having died in the wilderness in a non-riotous related incident, was going to lose out on his inheritance, and they claimed that they should rightfully receive his share of land in Israel — Moses then turns to God to find out what the appropriate ruling ought to be.
But didn’t Moses already know what the ruling should be? It’s right there in Numbers, chapter 27 verse 7…why didn’t Moses just roll the complete Torah scroll that he wrote at Sinai to the chapter in which this matter is discussed and not have to bother God for information to which he already had access?
Pinchas continues (27:13-14) by rehashing Moses’ infraction at Merivah (20:7-13), bringing to mind the main plot twist of Spielberg’s Minority Report. In the film, Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, an officer at PreCrime, a law enforcement agency that prevents murders by catching the murderer before he or she commits the murder. The murders are perceived via precognition by a team of psychics, and about half an hour into the film, Cruise’s character is predicted by the psychics to murder one Leo Crow and he must flee as a certified future criminal in order to clear his name.
“Leo Crow?!” exclaims Anderton, “why would I kill Leo Crow? I don’t even know a Leo Crow!”
If Moses received the entire text of the Torah at Sinai, as R’ Akiva claims he did, he should have just steered clear of rocks. “Hit the rock?! Why would I hit the rock? I love rocks!”
And the same goes for quite a few other accounts mentioned in the Torah: the golden calf (Exodus 32:1-14), the blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-23), the second Passover (Numbers 9:6-13), the wood gatherer (Numbers 15:32-36), the company of Korach (Numbers 16:2-4), the few good men who became spies (Deuteronomy 1:21-22)…and this list is far and away from comprehensive. Whenever Moses was faced with a stinging challenge or a query of critical national importance, it appears from the text that he didn’t see it coming. He always seems sincerely surprised at these usually negative turn of events and, in response, seeks a solution from God with earnest inquiry on each occasion. Was this all an act, or was he somehow able to subconsciously compartmentalize that which he was predicted to do from that which he actually did when he did it?
R’ Ishmael answers this parsimoniously with great success — the firm claim that Moses did not receive the entire Torah at Sinai solves these inconsistencies and more, because unlike the prophecy uttered by Grampa in The Simpson’s Movie, the text of the Torah is quite explicit when it speaks of these future incidents — Marge sort of gasps in horror upon each partial revelation of the cryptic prophecy coming true — but anyone reading the text of the Five Books of Moses can clearly see what’s predicted, and it’s reasonably an impossible mission to suggest that Moses was merely acting baffled when he was later faced with these events in real time.
In contrast, R’ Akiva’s position seems to be a predecessor of today’s bold yet irrational response to contemporary thought — ostentatious and flamboyant in the hopes of loudly championing what is perceived as something necessary to defend against: the assertions of sectarians and Christians that the Torah is neither immutable nor fully binding, and what better way to emphasize that the entirety of the Torah is equally binding than to claim that it has existed as a complete unit since 974 generations prior to the creation of man and that it was given in complete and utter totality to Moses at Sinai? Altogether, R’ Akiva seems to be engage in relatively risky business to promote grandiose ideas that lead to more problems than solutions when evaluated from a logical perspective.
The aim of the school of R’ Ishmael seems to be out to seek the truth, while the opinions of the school of R’ Akiva seem to be for those who either can’t handle the truth or don’t seem to think it’s necessary to attempt to do so.
So when does R’ Ishmael hold the entire Torah was given?
See Bavli Chagigah 6a (last line, continued onto 6b): the Beraisa teaches that R’ Ishmael maintained that the general categories were given at Sinai while the details were transmitted to Moses in the Ohel Mo’ed (Tent of Meeting — the Mishkan), while R’ Akiva maintained that everything was given at Sinai, repeated in the Ohel Mo’ed and repeated once again in the plains of Moab.
Bold. Yasher Koach again. Given that tradition is open to this inquiry, what, exactly, is the problem with critical study of historical origins of the text in a religious context? Perhaps you don’t feel there is really any problem at all.
Also, I think there is another factor at play in the current move towards an extreme adoption of R. Akiva’s approach and even more extreme rejection of R. Ishmael’s. Fear. Fear that if it is not “All True,” in the narrowest most concrete and literal understanding of the meaning of “True” and the most expansive possible understanding of the meaning of “All,” then it must follow that it is “all false” and ultimately meaningless and useless.
Menachem Mendel of Rymanov taught that what was explicitly “revealed” was the first letter of the Aseret Hadibrot. Alef. Silent, soundless letter. Picture what it means. God setting God’s mouth to speak. The rest, then, is Israel’s, which is to say our, unfolding response to the power and deep significance of Revelation.
Again I go anonymous. Sheesh.
Great imagery, though, anonymous or not.
It’s partially fear and partially ignorance. Most people are completely unaware that these things exist behind the scenes, for even though so much of the dichotomous approach is revealed openly in the Talmud, it’s difficult to see everything everywhere with a panoramic view and be able to string together related topics and issues across tractates, etc.
When I first encoutnered these ideas, I found them to be very fresh and eye-opening and I hope everyone else does as well.
I enjoyed what you wrote and the questions but I am confused. How does R’Akiva answer the issues that you raise?
Indeed, I am bothered by the same question. Simply saying R’ Akiva is wrong is just as bad as saying both he and R Ishmael are wrong.
I don’t think that’s a valid comparison — is saying that Shamai is wrong just as bad as saying that both Hillel and Shamai are wrong? Is saying that R’ Moshe Feinstein is wrong just as bad as saying that both R’ Moshe and R’ Shlomo Zalman are wrong?
And furthermore, what did you mean by ‘just as bad’ — that it’s not a fair statement?
I would characterize this differently. Both are voices in Jewish tradition. Neither can be simply rejected even if one or the other seems the more persuasive to a given person or community at a given moment. Rather both need to be recognized as part of the tradition we inherit. And we may find that both have something to teach us. Even when we see definitively that we pasken like Hillel we nevertheless explicitly affirm that “ellu va-ellu divrei Elokim chayyim.” Even as we apparently reject Shammai’s conclusions in nearly every case we take pains to remind ourselves that those conclusions, though not followed as matters of halacha l’ma’aseh, remain a voice in the tradition we inherit. The tradition is multivocal–that is part of its granduer and meaning. A univocal dogmatic absolutism is not what Jewish tradition gives us.
If it sounds like I’m saying of of these mutually exclusive and incompatible suppositions that “both are true,” that’s exactly what I’m saying. When I’m studying text with an eye toward unearthing p’shat and original intent or even historical origins, I am thinking like R. Ishmael. When I am tearing up standing before God the King on the Throne of Judgment as I recite the shomeh esreh on Yom Kippur R. Akiva’s approach is very much alive to me. Fundamentalists–both atheist ones and religious ones–don’t understand. I’m “inconsistent,” they say. My response is that I am not inconsistent but rather am, quite consistently, embracing a multvocal tradition: ellu V-ellu divrei Elokim chayyim. This AND this is sacred. P’shat AND D’rash.
100%
It appears as though we have twisted our wires a bit, speaking of both halacha and agadda in the same breath.
When it comes to halacha, there is certainly reason to include the dissenting opinions beyond elu v’elu. One reason is to popularize the best wrong answer — someone might come along in 2011 and suggest a way in doing something, and we’d all sit back and wonder why we never thought of explaining it in this manner. Perhaps such way of performing the commandment (or refraining from performing a prohibition) seems superior and we cannot fathom why it’s not employed — to prevent such a thing, the opposition is included.
Another rationale given is that all collected dispute responses were either at one time acceptable or actually still acceptable in certain circumstances. Although much less leeway is given for biblical requirements, rabbinical edicts are quite flexible in many situations (b’dieved – ex post facto, shas hadchak – difficult circumstances, hefsed meruba – undue financial hardship, kavod hatzibbur – communal needs, kavod habriyos – personal embarrasment, etc.) and how lenient may we be when permitting certain things? Well, sometimes, we can be as lenient as the dissenting opinion that would otherwise not be acceptable — but if it was left out completely, we wouldn’t know what it was.
But when we talk about agadda: did Naftali (son of Jacob) really run like The Flash back to Egypt to procure the bill of ownership for Jacob’s body to be buried at the Cave of the Patriarchs and how many routes were there through the Reed Sea and did (and can?) Moses ascend to Heaven and did (and can?) God descend to Earth at Sinai? Consistent with the highly ornate philosophy of exegesis promulgated by R’ Akiva, yes. R’ Ishmael would contend that none of this occurred, and if we look at this and want to know what actually happened, what are we to say? The yeshivish approach is to say similar to what you posited — all are true.
How can all be true? Well, if the measuring rod for what is true is “whatever Chazal said,” then it translates pretty directly that all of the above is true, as all were statements made by Chazal.
If one takes the approach put forth by R’ Ishmael but then amplified by what perhaps later became known as the rational Maimonidean approach, anything that’s irrational woudl be frowned upon, and as the Maharatz Chayes was fond of saying, even the people who said these things didn’t mean for them to be taken literally.
R’ Akiva doesn’t respond to this line of inquiry because although R’ Ishmael was his contemporary, the age of skepticism didn’t begin until well after R’ Akiva was dead and buried.
As explained in previous weeks, for one who disagrees with his premises, there can be two approaches taken to the Talmudic opinions advanced by R’ Akiva:
1) R’ Akiva didn’t mean what he said to be taken literally.
2) R’ Akiva actually meant what he said to be taken literally, but he was mistaken.
I had vacillated between the two of these while responding to comments to my Shavuos post in respect to Rashi’s opinion on the interpretation of the verse that stated the Israelites saw the thunder at Sinai, and have not yet come to a definitive position, for there are those that support both perspectives.
I don’t see a problem. Not everything is our business to know.
Doesn’t Baruch Chonen Hada’at impel us to activate and use that capacity? If God is Chonen Hada’at, is it possible God wants us to deactivate that intellectual faculty on the gounds that “we’re not supposed to seek to know” certain things? Choosing to avoid knowledge seems wrong to me.
What sort of approach is that?
If Judaism is reality, then it conforms to reality — to suggest that information is possessed but not released is a bit counterproductive when promoting a transparent reality.
So we may not know what 5 divided by 0 is, but it’s not like I know and I’m just not telling you. So too, we may not know both the location and velocity of an object, but nobody knows that.
Pretending that Judaism is compatible with reality but explaining that we may not ask certain things is very similar to Christianity, in which compatibility is claimed yet questions are censored.
“Pretending that Judaism is compatible with reality but explaining that we may not ask certain things is very similar to Christianity, in which compatibility is claimed yet questions are censored.”
And what’s wrong with that? The only differences between Judaism & Christianity is the whole Jesus myth as far as I know. Other than that, we are quite compatible with each other. “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” is a very Jewish notion in my opinion. Why can’t I have that toy? Because Dad said so. Why can’t I eat lobster? Because God said so. Works for me. Why not for you?
“The only differences between Judaism & Christianity is the whole Jesus myth as far as I know.” What’s wrong with it is that “as far as you know” isn’t very far. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you haven’t actually studied Christianity much (except, of course, whatever is said about it in The Little Midrash Says).
The reality is the difference between Judaism and Christianity is vast. Go to any synagogue of any movement or denomination or sect. You will find, across the most seemingly unbridgable divides, that every one of them has a Chumash available and every one of those Chumashim has *commentary.* Now go to a Christian church. Any denomination. You will find a Bible. No commentary. Why? Becuase we ask questions and seek answers. We challenge and explore our sacred traditions. We wrestle with what we receive. It is who we are. God said it, I believe it, that settles it is, in fact, a very *not* Jewish notion, at least in so far as it is patently inconsistent with Rabbinic tradition. You may, of course, believe whatever you like. But you cannot correctly pass off what you are saying here as representative of normative Judaism. It isn’t.
Oh it most certainly is normative. YOU wrestle. I don’t. I open an Artscroll and find the answers that have been long held true by our Gedolim. If a Rav Moshe says that those lice that Slifkin perseverates about were spontaneously generated from dirt, all the science in the world will not convince me otherwise.
“I open an Artscroll and find the answers. . .” ROTFL. And simultaneously SMHIS (Shaking My Head in Sadness).
You, my friend, are acting like a clown.
What do you think science is…the work of the non-existant devil? Science is reality and Torah is reality and they are from one and the same source.
The problem is, DR, that he speaks for a not insignificant segment of modern Orthodoxy (small ‘m’) and the Orthodox educational system.
I’d say he speaks more for the yeshivish segment, and that said segment is quite silly and misrepresentative of Torah values when they assert such things as he just has.
Rabbi Akiva-nik: I don’t know if you’re married, and if you are, whether or not your wife has ever nursed — but supposed such a situation did or theoretically could arise, would you permit her from consuming watermelon and leeks while nursing, or would you keep her away from these types of produce, as mentioned in Numbers 11:5 and explained by Rashi, quoting R’ Shimon, that such foods are harmful to a nursing mother?
You have a problem with Artscroll? It is THE most reliable source of Torah-truisms in today’s world. Why do you think nearly every Orthodox shul uses their Chumashim and siddurim? Because it is approved and encouraged by Gedolei Yisroel.
Artscroll has its uses I suppose, though personally I find its scholarship and editorial choices of commentary poor quality (like so many other mass produced stuff–it’s like fast food). You think just because it’s widely used you can conclude it’s high quality? See previous comment about fast food.
Still, it has its place (again, so does fast food I suppose). What makes me laugh sadly, though, is not using Artscroll, but rather your characterization of your intellectual life as swallowing Artscroll whole–“I open an Artscroll and find the answers. . .” It’s one thing to eat fast food occasionally or even frequently if one is aware of what one is eating. It is quite another to mistake it for high cuisine.
Poor quality? Let’s see. Rashi, Ramban, Rambam, Midrash Rabba, Talmud, Baal HaTurim, Vilna Gaon, R’ Moshe Feinstein, Rav Y. Kamenetsky, ad infinitum. Now, exactly which of these commentaries do you find to be of poor quality? Who exactly is missing that would make it more appetizing to you if they were included? I venture to say that most have never even heard of those that Rosenbach mentions, including this Maharas Chaitz or whatever its called. The Artscroll library happens to be the most comprehensive resource for all things Torah.
“Now, exactly which of these commentaries do you find to be of poor quality?” None of them. I am not belittling sources but editorial decisions of what specific comments to include and not include. I stand by my assessment that it is mass produced and pushes a specific agenda of simplistic theology. You are a wonderful case in point. Everything you know you’ve learned from Artscroll. I can think of no better illustration of my point.
As to you list of sources, I’ll glance at my Artscroll Siddur later to provide a few more names–I think you’ve left out a few. To take an obvious sore point, the refusal to translate Shir Hashirim at all is intellectually as well as theologically dishonest and simplistic and frankly appallingly disrespectful to the Tanakh text and fundamentally misunderstands what midrash is, etc. Which makes it no surprise that you, too, who learn everything you know about Judaism from Artscroll (“I open an Artscroll and find the answers”) likewise fundamentally misunderstand what midrash is. At the risk of overstating my point, too much Artscroll can make a person silly.
A biography of sorts for R’ Zvi Hirsch Chajes, commonly referred to as the Maharatz Chayes, can be found in the linked Wikipedia article. His commentary on the Talmud is very well known — he can be found in the back of Bavli Brachos, for example, on page 47 a little bit after R’ Yakov Emden and before the Rashash, and at the back of Bavli Gittin, for example, on page 46, immediately after the Rashash.
“HaNistarim l’Hashem Elokeinu.”
To me that covers everything we don’t already have a Mesora for. In other words, everything there is for us to know has already been learned. It may not have made it’s way into our thick untrained minds, but it’s there. If it isn’t, it means it’s not supposed to be. Like the whole thing about why the letter Beis (Bet for those insist upon the Sephardi version) is shaped the way it is and why the Torah starts with it, because what came for Bereishis is not for us to delve into. I take that explanation literally. The whole scientific explanation of what came before Beis is not for us to know, and it is kefira to explore it.
Everything comes with rules, including every part of our body, which therefore includes our minds as well. Rule #1 is don’t think about things we are told by Chazal not to think about.
I think you are only partially right. We even have a midrash to the effect that there were worlds (universes?) before ours and that our world was created from their remains. Sure, we still don’t really know what that means, but if we can go that far, why not go a step further and posit that a big crunch went before the big bang?
Why can’t we accept scientific theories that don’t in anyway contradict what our Mesora tells us?
“We even have a midrash . . .” It’s simple. The midrash has a different view from that of Rabbi Akiva-nik here. The teaching about the bet is but one voice in our multivocal tradition. It is not absolute.
“Why can’t we accept. . .” We can. Only Akiva-nik can’t. 🙂
why not go a step further?
Why not add a 4th branch of leaves to the lulav? Because. That’s why. And for many of us, that’s enough. Unlike the secular world, in the Torah world, not everything is an open book or an open door. In the secular world, you can go to the biggest library and read anything you want. Not so in our world. We don’t get to say “Well it’s very nice what the Midrash Rabba says about creation, but I wonder what Stephen Hawking has to say about it.” We don’t care, and we don’t want to know, and even if we did, it’s not for us.
“We don’t care, and we don’t want to know, and even if we did, it’s not for us.” If t’chiyat hametim happens later this afternoon you better go into hiding because Sa’adia Gaon, who was an astronomer among his varied other pursuits, was an astronomer, is going to find you and smack you upside the head. 🙂 And in front of the line of others behind him to take a shot at you will be Rambam the student of Aristotelianism. You think frumkeit is incompatible with the scientific quest for knowledge and understanding. You are wrong.
Scientific theory trumps midrash any day because midrash is far from authoritative — and it’s never meant to be.
And we do not not add a 5th species “because” — that’s completely erroneous, and you know it! We do not do so because that would be a violation of a very well documented, elaborated upon and parametered biblical commandment of bal tosef. And situations in which it does not make sense to apply this rule — such as when one repeats a commandment rather than adding to it (for instance, wearing tefillin twice in a day rather than adding a 5th parsha to the boxes), it is not applied. How are we to rationally and methodically apply rules when you suggest that logic is an invalid method of deriving anything?
No way. “Chazal saying something makes it true & perfect.” Sheesh.
Torah logic, not man’s logic. Torah does not adhere to secular logic and does not have to. The same way that if the Torah says to make a square circle, that means it can be done.
Akiva-nik~
You are doing nothing to advance this discussion other than fighting. Suppose R’ Akiva himself would read this blog and comment…what do you think he would say? Probably something along the lines of, “of course I make sense! I’m right, and that R’ Ishmael guy is the one who’s incorrect — he thinks his finite human mind can comprehend the infinite nature of God and the Torah…what an odd position to take indeed!”
Other than advancing R’ Akiva’s position, you are doing nothing to support your arguments. Of course R’ Akiva thinks he made lots of sense and was completely in line with acceptability — no one’s here is suggesting that he’s a fool. You’re promoting a very circular argument here; clearly, if I’m advancing R’ Ishmael’s perspective there will be the contrary Akivan approach, but merely stating it doesn’t give the argument any credence over R’ Ishmael’s.
So let’s agree to disagree — if you find R’ Akiva’s approach to be palatable, I’d like to know how you can come to that conclusion while maintaining consistency (as I’ve asked you above [or below, perhaps I’m lost] in regards to preventing modern day nursing females from consuming watermelon, yet you have yet to respond, let alone favorably) — but my point here is not to regurgitate the same old drudgery promulgated by yeshiva day schools that turns so many people off when they reach the age of thinking for themselves. If you don’t think about these things, then we’re obviously in different dimensions here, and let’s leave it at that. But to constantly put up the argument that “R’ Ishmael is wrong” by stating “R’ Akiva is correct” is most definitely getting you nowhere, especially when the questions asked on his approach remain unanswered.
Kol tuv 🙂
I never said R’ Yishmael is wrong. They are both right. But not because they are both right logically. They are both right because they are Chazal, and only Chazal can be perfectly right. I promise you that if Chazal said somewhere that the earth is flat, I would believe it beyond doubt. That is our requirement. There is no such thing as them saying something opposite of what we “know” to be right, because we know nothing compared to them.
This is you being ridiculous again.
Chazal did say that the earth is flat (Pesachim 94a).
And instead of discussing astronomy, which will be lost on many people, let’s discuss watermelon, which no one can become confused about — Rashi on Numbers 11:5 quotes R’ Shimon who proclaimed that cucumbers, watermelon, leeks onions and garlic are harmful to nursing mothers. But in fact, he said no such thing — it was actually much more ridiculous than that. Because R’ Shimon is discussing the taste acquired by the manna, it must not be that these 5 foods are harmful to nursing mothers, but that the taste of these five foods is harmful, because the manna wasn’t said to have transmogrified into whatever it was one have liked to eat, but rather it merely acquired the taste.
That would mean that watermelon ices, which taste like watermelon but don’t even actually contain any watermelon, are dangerous to nursing mothers — would you agree? And onion soup, which tastes like onions, is dangerous to nursing mothers. Would you support such a ban?
Wow. Complete and utter disagreement.
The world is G-d’s creation. We have a mitzvah to know G-d, which means to both seek to understand people and halacha (the daled amus of Hashem today), as well as his creations. There are many, many questions – and the beauty is that answers can be found for all of them!
This btw is also the reason I dislike Slifkin’s stuff. Chazal saying something makes it true & perfect. If they said Og was 1100 feet tall, than he was, regardless of the mishegass about how it’s physically impossible. God doesn’t have to explain Himself to you, you have to explain yourself to God.
Not only is that an exceedingly narrow-minded approach disputed by many, it’s also inconsistent with the Torah’s own philosophy of discovery.
For example: when attempting to establish the flour of which plant material when mixed with water meet the halachic definition of lechem for the purposes of such things as separating (hafrashas) challah, making matzah and requiring the biblically mandated after-blessing when eaten in sufficient quantities, the Talmud explains how Chazal experimented with different grains and decided, based upon the results of the experimentation, which would be included and which would not. (Yerushalmi Challah 1:57/Tur 1:41)
Why didn’t Chazal just say whatever it is they wanted to, rather than peer into this world and see what the reality is? Perhaps it’s because that’s not the manner in which they operate — Judaism is about reality and the world is about reality and they must be compatible.
Actually, Judaism is not so much about reality that exists, as it is about the reality we are supposed to create.
That’s sure sounds like a very flaky thing to say to someone unless you’re already deeply involved in a discussion and everyone recognizes the profundity of the mystical plane this discussion is on.
Sure, there are lots of cool ideas that we can discuss, but as an initial statement, stated to respond to an off the cuff statement regarding Judaism asserting X or Y, my response would be that Og being 1100 feet tall is nonsense and there is no authoritative source to suggest that that was the reality.
I disagree a little (and I suspect you won’t disagree with me). It’s not “nonsense,” it’s just not “fact.” The traditional midrashic commentators are generally “on to something” with comments they make, even ones that look like “throw-aways” or “silliness.” Reading a comment like this one as fact is silly and will invariably miss the point and lead the student astray.
I would contend that these things were never to be taken literally. In 700 years, when someone quotes from the World War era a passage about “the wings of Germany’s eagle spreading from coast to coast,” and attempting to take it literally, that would be nonsense. It is a euphemism — no German has ever suggested that a bird with such a tremendous wingspan ever existed.
So you might chuckle to yourself at this, because, of course no German would ever suggest such a thing. But when we read Native American accounts of the hawk being the messenger of God and the rabbit being the embodiment of the hunt so that when they would catch a rabbit, they would rest their hands upon its head and apologize for needing to eat from the kill, unless of course there was a hawk out that day, which would have meant that it was God’s will that the rabbit be caught — the chuckle would not be the same. It would be one of derision. No such symbols exist intrinsically — they were artificial creations of primitive man.
When we read the midrash, is it artificial creation of primitive man? If read literally, then yes, says the likes of Maimonides and the Maharatz Chayes. If read allegorically, then no — not only is there a deeper meaning, but there is only a deeper meaning. The superficial presentation of the tales are merely creative ways of getting the messages across — but the only substance, they contended, was the message, and not the shell of the absurdly irrational tales.
Agreed.
“Rule #1 is don’t think about things we are told by Chazal not to think about.” And definitely don’t ever think about Ibn Ezra on B’reishit 12:6.
Please, I do not want to get into analyzing the analyzing and going off into tangents. I just want an answer to the simple observation that Mosha appeared not to know the things stated in the Torah. If in fact he was dictated the entire torah he would have known the future and would not have been surprised. If he was told not to change anything, fine, but he should not have been surprised.
To begin, there are no tangents because the ideas discussed are all inter-related.
But as for your specific point…your questions in my question — that is exactly what I’m asking, and R’ Akiva does not provide what I deem to be a satisfactory response.
Akiva-nik (the commentor, both above and below) has been heralding R’ Akiva’s response, but it is more of a non-response for my Ishmaelian taste.
R’ Akiva defies logic by claiming that we cannot understand the divine. We are not able to rationally assess the questions I ask and provide rational answers because these things are out of the bounds of rational evaluation.
the Talmud explains how Chazal experimented with different grains and decided…
Thanks for making my point. Chazal decided, not scientists. We look at science thru the eyes of Torah, not the other way around. We do not have to be in line with science at all. If it conflicts with what Chazal say, than science is wrong.
Modern medicine, particular antibiotic therapy, is fundamentally based on Evolutionary Theory as the central axiom of modern biology. It is assur. Even worse, it is wrong. Don’t use it.
I suppose that you don’t really appreciate the argument you are making, but rather are merely parroting what you’ve heard from your superiors, be they parents, teachers, etc.
I’ve already emailed you, and when you respond, I will send you the links to the shiurim that R’ Becher has on these issues. I think you will find that your position is not only poorly substantiated by the sources you quote to support them, but also incorrect.
Except of course both of their premises are that God gave the Torah to Moses at Mt. Sinai, which to those outside the world of religious fundamentalism sounds equally preposterous. R’ Ishmael is only more logical than R’ Akiva within an alternate OJ logical universe.
That’s a salient point which has been left out of the discussion (at least by me) because it deserves an entire discussion in its own right — what are miracles and how are they explained within the confines of Jewish thought on both sides of the aisle.
Because its such a rich subject in and of itself, I thought it would be best to bring it up at a time when it can be the sole focus of the discussion — but suffice it to say that the existence of miracles is neither questioned nor dismissed by even the likes of the rationalist R’ Ishmael.
Like any system, the players must work within the parameters provided. I might be able to smack a baseball 600 ft, but if I can only do so at an 85 degree angle to the line of the pitch, every hit I make will be a foul rather than a celebrated home run. So too, R’ Ishmael (and R’ Akiva, and everyone else here), at least for this discussion, are taking it for granted that there is a God and he is the God of Moses, and that would be because they feel compelled to do so. Assuming that, what necessarily follows is that the Torah reflects reality and all its commentators within the accepted degrees of freedom of Judaism (and so excluding those like Nietzsche and John Robinson) are not only speaking with good intentions but with some degree of authority.
If the torah was given in full to Mosha and there were events that didn’t occur yet and the action was not changed because of this, for example the hitting of the rock vs talking to the rock, this, to me, is proof that in some way, what was in the torah was not understood until after the events occurred. Whether the Torah was in code or something else I could not say but the facts as we know them show us that Mosha did not know or understand what was going to happen in the future.
That’s sort of the point I am making. However, if the Torah hasn’t changed (which we assert) and Moshe received the Torah (which we also assert), something has to give — because the Torah as we have it is pretty clear when it tells, for instance, of the incident of the golden calf.
Mincha is in 10 minutes, and even though you know that, you are busy doing something and your wife has to remind you when there’s 2 minutes left that you’re supposed to go. Is that what happened? Moshe knew that the Israelites were going to rebel, but he was so busy working on whatever it was that he was doing that God had to command him, “Descend, for your nation has deviated!!”
“Oh, thanks for reminding me…I knew that, but I was so busy that, for a moment, I completely forgot.”
Is that what happened? It doesn’t seem like that from the text — it seems like Moses didn’t know and was genuinely discovering what was going on as it was happening, along with all the other accounts I mentioned and many others that I didn’t.
The main point, I think, is a bit beyong this, though — in general, why go to such extremes to explain things when the things we say that then need so much explaining to make them work didn’t have to be said in the first place? Why insist that Moses received the entire Torah on Sinai? What conclusions may be drawn from such a proposal that serve to undermine Judaism in such a way that it cannot be tolerated? R’ Akiva is known to say such extraordinary things that he was for a long time labeled an embellisher — now everything he says is the perfect mesorah: from Moses, to Pre-1A morah to us. And if you want to maybe think a little when you get older, and you come to the conclusion that these stories are great learning tools and have profound messages embedded but to belive in them in inconceivable, when is the debriefing?
Unfortunately, there is none. Until now.
Maybe it was a matter of fate. Maybe it didn’t matter if Moshe knew: he had to do it anyway, he had to follow a script that was already written.
Moshe Rabbenu reduced to a mere automaton?
He had to like Bilaam couldn’t curse the Israelites?
What’s the punishment for if he had to comply with hitting the rock?
I like your response Dr. D.
It is interesting to note on the front page article of the Jewish Press dated July 8, 2011 by Rabbi Berel Wein titled Legends & Fantasies in Jewish Life he quotes the rebbe of Kotzk, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Morgenstern (Halperin) who stated, when talking about the Midrash, “He who believes all of the tales is a fool and yet he who states that they could not have occurred is a non-believer.” “Midrash is full of contradictory statements and opinions about the very same incident or person.– but this in no way compromises the value of Midrash to us as a conduit of Jewish values and insights. It is only when Midrash and legends are taught as facts that these problems of contradictions and obvious exaggerations arise.”
I guess there’s a limt on replies to a thread, but anyway, I don’t know what you mean about the “refusal to translate Shir HaShirim”. I have the Artscroll and it’s translated just fine.
You think so? Look again. Read the introduction.
I have yet to meet or hear ANY Rabbi qualify statements made in the Miidrash. They never say “there’s a midrash that says so and so, but it’s not really so”. It is always presented as fact, by teachers, rebbeim, and shul Rabbis as well. And when questioned as to how 1 midrash can say X and another says Y, that’s where eilu v’eilu is always used. So, was Og a thousand feet tall? Yes. Was he also about 6 feet tall? Yes. I don’t question beyond that, because the real answer is inconsequential.
How’s that Shir Hashirim translation working out for you?
I dont know im at work. But i read it every Pesach and the translation looks fine to me.
It’s not a translation.
This circular argument is looking more and more like a square. 🙂
Listen, Akiva-nik — please respond to my email. I will provide you with R’ Mordechai Becher’s email address and you can ask him about qualifying the midrashim yourself. You can also ask him specifically whether God descended onto Mount Sinai (as R’ Akiva proposes) or a dozen other things — the choice is yours. Are you familiar with R’ Becher? If you are not, you can read about him at his Wikipedia article.
Well, nothing from Akiva-nik, so I’ll explain. Artscroll, as what I believe is the best manifestation of its errant underlying hashkafa (to the degree that one can generalize about something as vast as the Artscroll publishing empire), believes Shir Hashirim must not be translated (or, one presumes, even read by anyone fluent in Hebrew). Indeed in the introduction to one of its versions it explains that “fools and scoundrels” might do so. The daily siddur has the most succinct statement: “a literal translation would be misleading–even false–because it would not convey the meaning intended by King Solomon, the composer.” So Artscroll does not provide any translation, substitution the classic midrashic interpretation where a translation would normally go. Akiva-nik never noticed. Because what is “false” is Artscroll’s deception. And that is the danger of Artscroll–though in this case it’s right there in the introduction if one takes the time to read it, it is usually not made explicit when it is pulling an intellectual stunt like this and pulling a fast one to keep you from seeing something, or knowing something, it doesn’t want you to see or to know.
To comment on this specific thing, there is no doubt the classic midrash is central to our traditional understanding of Shir Hashirim. But to suggest that Shlomo Hamelech chose a particular metaphor through which to convey his vision of the relationship between God and Israel but we must never actually read the metaphor he chose, only the idea he sought to convey through it, is absurd and frankly disrespectful to Shlomo and also to the sacred text he composed. If the book uses a metaphor to get its point across, it is ludicrous in the extreme to tag that metaphor itself as something assur and “false.” How can it be that the straight meaning of Tanakh is something “false” from which we all must be protected by Artscroll and who does Rav Scroll think he is to “protect” us in this way in the first place?! In the end, doing so in the way Artscroll does creates ignorance as so clearly illustrated here.
Sure looks like one to me.
Ah–I see this was connected to the translation issue. Obviously, see my extended comment above. Do you have an Artscroll publication that actually translates Shir Hashirim? I would be interested in that and also quite surprised by it as it is clearly not consistent with the statement quoted above that translation (and therefore, shockingly, the p’shat of the text itself) is “false.”
And furthermore, the very fact that it “sure looks like one to you” is *precisely* the problem. It looks like one. It is presented as one. It tricked you into thinking it is one. But it is not one.
I got your email. Im not interested in what Rabbi Becher has to say about it really, any more than I am interested in what Slifkin has to say. My Rav said he’s a kofer (Slifkin), that’s all I need to know. Rationalism has no place in Torah.
No one denies that R’ Slifkin is a kofer, not even Slifkin himself — I’m a kofer, too.
What is a kofer? Your Rav said Slifkin’s a kofer? Maybe your Rav is a kofer! It’s so quaint to call someone a kofer…have you thought of that? What does it even mean — not just what does kofer mean, but what does calling someone a kofer mean?
So a kofer is a denier. An apikorus is a heretic, but ‘heresy’ is such a sophisticated word that rarely does anyone really think about what it actually means. Both Slifkin and I perhaps don’t deny the validity of the common man’s approach, but certainly deny the favorability of its application. So we are not actual kofrim, just colloquial kofrim.
And who is authorized to call someone else a kofer. Get enough kofrim together, and that new community of kofrim authorize their leader to call your leader a kofer — it’s as simple as that. As there’s no centralized authority in Judaism anymore, there’s no more authority in your leadership as its constituents give it. So if someone (Slifkin or Rosenbach) some and undermine your treasured community values, that someone is a kofer — he denies the validity of what you teach your children and your young adults, how you teach them and so on and so forth. Children and young adults become big adults, and most people are not going to completely uproot everything they think they know from adolescence because they read otherwise in a book or on a blog.
Conversely, there seems to be a lot more that you need to know.
Oh, and you stated before that you were not asserting that R’ Ishmael is wrong. Your previous comment, “rationalism has no place in the Torah,” is in direct opposition to the approach of R’ Ishmael — you couldn’t counter his position any more that by saying that.
And is R’ Becher a kofer, too?
If he supports what Slifkin says, then yes. The Mesorah is what rules, and the Mesorah is in the hands of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah! If Rav Elyashiv, shlita, would come out and say that tomorrow is Yom Kippur, then you have to fast. It’s really quite simple.
Kofer means anyone who denies the Torah and its human representatives, ie the Gedolei Yisroel. The Gedolim banned his books, ergo he is a kofer. I really don’t get why you have to cause so much trouble. Just accept what our Gedolim have said and do what you’re supposed to do. I don’t have any “treasured community values”. All Torah values are the same everywhere. If all the Jewish women in my community started not covering their hair, they would be put in cherem.
No, actually that’s not what a kefirah means, although that’s what it’s perhaps colloquially used to mean. That’s because colloquialisms are largely user defined, although the “user” I speak of may not be an individual but an entire community.
The rabbis who banned his books did so for a number of reasons, nearly none of which they made public — that’s because it was the public they were attempting to protect from something they found distasteful and it is the very same public who they do not trust to be able to comprehend their methods or conclusions.
The rabbis who banned his books were bandwagoned into signing — how many of them actually read the book? And how many of them have a sufficient scientific background to even debate the issues appropriately? While I promote complete superimposition of science and Torah, the two subjects when studied alone each suggest to the uninformed reader to discuss utterly different realms. The rabbis who banned Slifkin’s Challenge of Creation are largely unfamiliar with the issues discussed and their agenda is to get the masses to keep the faith — but they have few qualms about stepping on people to accomplish this goal, for the concern for the masses outweighs the concern for an individual.
Your narrow-mindedness is very telling of your wholly unsophisticated perspective — but I sense that it’s from your education and your upbringing; in essence, you are a tinok shenishba, so I’ll try not to belabor the point any more than is necessary.
Have you read Slifkin? Probably not, because it’s banned, right? Call up those very same rabbis, and they’ll more than likely — actually, I’d say they’d certainly — label this blog as prohibited as well. You are currently in violation of the implicit ban on reading kefirah, and moreover, you are quite rapidly and directly losing ground in your arguments with a bunch of colloquial kofrim, thus undermining your community’s perspective. Hundreds of people are reading this, losing respect for your position minute-by-minute.
You make a claim, it is refuted. You are challenged to answer a question, you balk. You ignore the question and make another claim. You are challenged on that claim, but fail to support it with anything other than, “my position is correct because it’s the correct position. This is what I was taught, nothing I ever heard in yeshiva was wrong, the rabbis are infallible and so everyone who does not share my viewpoint is either a doctrinal novice or a complete heretic.” You are responded to, joshed a bit, but you maintain your unwavering allegiance to a corrupt approach to Judaism in which you mistake interpretation for translation, a sliver of the mesorah for the entire mesorah and you lack the debating skills to promote your side of the argument with anything but an explicit reiteration of your side of the argument. If you are so concerned with what your ban writers have to say, your inconsistency here itself should serve as evidence enough against your position — you claim that one must unquestionably “accept what our Gedolim have [to say] and do what [they say one ought to do],” yet you come here to inadequately represent their approach with poorly thought out propositions and ill-developed counterarguments.
Since Maimonides, a heretic is someone who fails to accept those tenets of the religion laid out as fundamental substructures of the Jewish religion. So one who would deny the existence of a God or assert the existence of a God but also assert the existence of other gods — such as in the form of assistant gods, associate gods or colleage gods — would be a heretic. Someone who denies the historical existence of Moses or that he really received any prophecy or that his prophecy is superior to all prophecies prior or aft would be a heretic. But someone who says that he cannot accept the historicity of the first 12 chapters of Genesis is decidedly not a heretic, despite what your Rav might claim. What he meant to say was that one who espouses such views is operating outside the bounds of his (your Rav’s) community’s treasured values and is thus a denier of those values, and such an individual is labeled a heretic, albeit a colloquial heretic. The same way how it used to be politically correct to call someone a retard if they were slow at grasping a concept, even though the term sort of had a more definitive albeit subjective definition — and the same way we now call people idiots even if we have not had the opportunity to assess that person’s intellectual potential or knowledge base and are instead basing our diagnosis off of perhaps a single episode of poor judgment.
I can’t really respond to your comment about Torah values because it’s quite ambiguous what you mean. Is your value synonymous with halacha, minhag, community standard or some or all or something completely different?
If you go to 770 and give a shout out to the dead rebbe, but in doing so firmly assert his lack of Moshiach-hood, you likely will not get an aliyah unless your father-in-law is a Chabadnik there and he gives lots of money. Why? Because you are a colloquial heretic insofar as you undermine their treasured community values. If you walk into Bobov with a Metallica T-shirt, a little lime green srugi, bright yellow bike shorts and sandals, you likely will not get an aliyah even at the 7:10 break-away of the break-away minyan, because by your appearance, you undermine treasured community values and are tacitly labeled as a colloquial heretic, even though no one has come over to ascertain your views on divine corporiality or whether or not you are fervently anticipating the resurrection of the dead following the end of days.
If R’ Eliyashiv said that tomorrow was Yom Kippur, he would be summarily sidelined — in fact, if he actually did this and refused to back down, he would likely be expelled from whatever positions he holds, along with a little group of followers (of course) and he’d be labeled a colloquial kofer — tomorrow, however, would remain exceedingly very un-Yom Kippur-like. Yom Kippur is by biblical law limited to the 10th day of Tishrei and seeing how yesterday was the 17th of Tammuz, R’ Eliyashiv would have no authority to change the calendar. Perhaps you are confusing Judaism with Christianity.
Do you shave? If I’m not mistaken, R’ Eliyashiv does not permit shaving. Perhaps you are a heretic and don’t even know it…are you deviating from the path of rabbinical guidance? Or perhaps you hold like R’ Eliyashiv for rulings X, Y and Z and like another gadol for rulings A, B and C and yet another rabbi for rulings D, E and F. That would make you modern Orthodox, for which a hallmark is that it’s not necessary to completely follow the direction of a single Torah authority (as used to be the case) but that one may ask a number of rabbinical authorities a number of questions and adhere to the different responsa. Does your Rav know that you are a modern Orthodox heretic who reads implicitly banned blogs and does a very poor job of representing his community’s treasured values? He might just ostracize you for that — better keep it on the down low.
It’s clear that you are wearing blinders and that we not only won’t agree (which would be fine, really) but also that we won’t be able to break free of this repetitious circle of statement/counter/ignore + statement/counter + statement/ignore + ignore + statement, so perhaps we should end here.
You suffer from the common misconception that everyone driving faster than you is crazy and everyone driving slower than you is a moron — but that’s how you were trained, so we ought not hold it against you. Although ignorance is not an excuse, according to Maimonides, so he might still have a bone to pick with you.
Very eloquent. So were all the kofrim thru the ages, including Slifkin. I don’t have to use the rules of debate and logic and arguing to make a point though, because I don’t buy those rules. They are man-made. Torah is not. And you are wrong. Someone who does not accept a single word in Torah, Genesis or otherwise, is a complete and total kofer and apikores, according to ALL of Chazal! Anyone who says there are contradictions in Torah is in the same heretical boat. There are none. It is only the feeble minded human being that can’t comprehend its greatness.
Your comments are illogical, but I can’t use logic to refute you because logic is inadmissible. I must say that’s very logical!
I’ll have to credit R’ Becher with that joke — but he’s a kofer, so maybe it’s not funny.
Illogical by your standards perhaps. Something from nothing is illogical too. But I doubt R’ Yishmael had issues with Creation from nothing.
Having died in 135 CE, R’ Ishmael was nearly completely unaware of almost everything even a 9th grader learns about in science class — phylogeny, ontogeny, atoms (let alone the existence and properties of sub-atomic particles), and everything else we know that it’s such a silly endeavor to list them…so I’ll stop.
Robert Hook was the first to describe the cell in about 1665 with a microscope, itself only invented in the 1500s — and then there’s all the important discoveries that made it possible to see from more than just their phenotypes that a chicken is more closely related to a turkey than either are to a duck that I won’t list them here — so why would R’ Ishmael have a problem with creation ex nihilo?
Do you think that R’ Ishmael sat in a deep cushioned lounger in an air conditioned beis medrash with an ArtScroll Talmud? You project him as though he’s sitting in Jerusalem in 1975 and he put out some responsa claiming that he has no problem with creation ex nihilo.
Creation ex nihilo is a hellenistic import into Jewish thinking. The Torah text itself does not support it. Rather it is quite clear that before God’s first creating utterance–“yehi or”–there already exists the materials of chaos–tohu vavohu, darkness, the deep (tehom) and, most notably, water.
nice!
Surely you jest. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Earth that He created was unformed and void. The darkness and water that was on the face of the tehom was part of what He created from nothing. Yesh me’ayin is Torah, nothing less.
And all the geonim, tanaim, amoraim, etc were aware of all of science. They could have created iPads had they wanted to, but they didn’t.
I would ask you to quote even one authoritative source (other than your Rav, although I needn’t exclude him as he’s not authoritative — but just in case you are as unfamiliar with sourcing protocol as you are with logic, I included this as well) that supports that claim, and by that I mean to say: please provide some evidence in the writings of the geonim, tanaim or amoraim that they themselves even claimed to be aware of all science.
Are you familiar with the Meiri’s position that the heavenly bodies weer created on Day 1 and only placed into position on Day 4? What sort of odd assertion is that? Well, it certainly appears as though the Meiri was trying to reconcile the text of the Torah with what he knew to be reality. Otherwise, why need to scramble things up? Had he been familiar with phylogeny, he likely would have constructed some other explanation for why the Torah recounts marine mammals preceding terrestrial mammals and birds preceding therapods.
Nearly every comment you produce serves to decelerate your position rather than promote it. iPads were not invented prior to 1600 because electricity was little more than an intellectual curiosity until Gilbert’s seminal investigations. It was only until the 1900s that it was discovered that integrated circuits (microchips) were able to perform the functions of vacuum tubes, themselves only discussed as late as 1873 by Guthrie and further developed by Edison in 1884.
For anyone involved in daf yomi, Bavli Chullin 60b is about 35 days away — there, it asks how Moses could possibly know what he was talking about when it came to kosher signs of animals. “Was Moses a hunter, or perhaps a zoologist?” the Talmud asks? No…for the purposes of receiving the Torah, God apparently instructed Moses what to write, even though he was unfamiliar with what he had to write down. Why is the Talmud so incredulous? Just respond that Moses knew everything because he could have built iPads, but he was resisting so as not to encroach on the future source of income for Apple. Had Moses usurped the creativity of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, we might not have been able to benefit from such cinematic masterpieces as 1994’s Blank Check, for there would be no “Mr. Macintosh.”
You’re probably upset because your position seems to be advancing so little that it appears to be going backwards. Perhaps we’ve become uncordial to one another — I’ll admit that relating to you merely through words lends itself to some dehumanization, and thus a tendency to be sharp, so I’ll apologize for that, and perhaps that’s what preventing you from taking a step back and actually considering your own side of the argument from a realistic standpoint.
To reiterate, then, without insult or injury, how about you respond to my question about nursing mothers consuming watermelon flavored ices, provide any source at all that can be considered authoritative that even suggests that Chazal knew everything about the universe thousands of years prior to anyone else figuring these things out and we can move on from there. Otherwise, you’re just reciting kindergarten stories and telling me what your 5th grade rebbe told you as though he were Moses himself.
I am confused. Did God create the world with 10 utterances or not? Did God create the world in 7 days or not? On the *first* day, God creates light. If you read pasuk alef, as you have just done, as a specific moment in creation in its own right, on which several specific things are conjured up “me-ayin,” then which day is it? Day zero? Is it sort of something that happens on the other side of the ‘bet’ in b’reishit when God just sort gets a few things ready but it doesn’t “count” as part of creation when we’re counting days and divine acts of creation? Is it conceivable that when the Torah says, “yom echad,” it’s sort of wrong, that’s really yom sheni since yom echad would have been yesterday when God created eretz, shamayim, tehom, mayim, etc?
Dear Rabbi Akiva-nik
First you state you never heard a Rabbi say …. then you do not want to listen to a Rabbi who may say what you never heard and give an explanation. You state rationalism has no place in Torah but it appears you are doing just that (rationalization) when you are having a closed mind to anything that may disagree with what you believe. Why do you become involved in a discussion when all you are ready for is for the other side to concede to your beliefs. You are starting to sound like some of the Washington politicians.
I think the major problem here is that people like DR assume that this world, Torah, and even God Himself have to make sense to us. The source of that idea is something I would just love to know. You use logic as if it’s some kind of sacred tome that even God must adhere to. That’s the fundamental premise on which we disagree. I say God can make 2 + 2 = 5. Your human logic says it’s impossible even for God to do that. God is Omnipotent. Anything less would not be God. That’s why folks like me, i.e. Haredim, prefer to just accept it and pass the cholent.
You’re right–this totally clears things up. I, and DRosenbach, are talking about Judaism. You are talking about Harediism, which, obviously, is different. Comparative religious studies and cults are interesting and all, but this time not so much. See ya.
You must be an engineer DRosenbach. When someone asks what time it is, you have to tell them how to build a clock. I speak in 2 sentence clarity, you speak in encyclopedic babbling that loses my attention after the first 2 sentences. I am not ADHD, but I can certainly see how it happens.
My Rav/Rebbe or the Gedolim say, and I do or I accept. It really doesn’t get any more difficult than that. sir. All your how can it happens and that doesn’t jive with what we “know” mean nothing. As far as I’m concerned, we only know what God wants us to know, and that only comes from Torah and Gedolim, not scientists.
Dodging the questions again, Akiva-nik.
At long last, no one can deny that, in your mind, your Rav can never be wrong and in your mind, Chazal can never have been misguided, misinformed or mistaken — but we are still waiting for you to respond to the challenges placed before you. Why do we not employ the medical therapies described in the 7th chapter of Bavli Gittin…because Chazal was correct? Decidedly, it’s, rather, because they were incorrect. Chazal could not have initial thought to build satellites because at some point in time, they thought of the land and sky as two parallel strata with the sun having to return to the eastern horizon by doubling back over the sky.
Why do we not prevent nursing mothers from consuming watermelon ices? Because R’ Shimon was incorrect. Why are you reading this blog? Because you think too highly of yourself to suppose that you need your Rav’s insight on all things holy and mundane. I asked both my Rav and my spiritual adviser if I may write for FrumSatire and both gave me permission. Neither of them are silly enough to stand behind the ban on Slifkin’s works — but we cannot say the same for your Rav, can we?
You are a pretender, Akiva-nik. You pretend by bringing R’ Eliyashiv’s theoretical declaration of Yom Kippur in Tammuz but not recanting when you were foiled. R’ Eliyashiv is not my rebbe — so I’m largely uninterested in what he has to say from anything but a didactic standpoint. If he says something in accordance with mainstream halacha, my rebbe will say the same thing. If he says something deriving from some fringe-belief of the universe, my rebbe will not agree, and I will not follow. And you don’t follow R’ Eliyashiv either, do you? Weren’t you just quoting him off the cuff before you realized that he doesn’t have the authority to move Yom Kippur?
I don’t understand your thought process, but perhaps we’re not meant to understand everything.
And I will be a periodontist in a year’s time, although my father wanted me to become an engineer
Gedolei Yisroel are sacrosanct. To say otherwise is kefira. The Yom Kippur example was merely an embellished theory, not meant to be literal. If they say something contrary to what you think is scientifically proven, then it is your obligation to deny science and accept their statement, no matter how much it boggles your mind. They may not be infallible, but they are a lot closer to it than any scientist will ever be. Science is merely a tool of the yetzer hara to get you to deny Torah. But we can pick some workable things from it to use, such as medicine.
However, if a doctor says eat this ham and it will cure your disease, and the Gadol says not to eat it, then you don’t eat it, regardless of his lack of medical knowledge.
Calling something kefirah is not like calling something blue — it’s not that you disagree with something and so it’s kefirah. That is exactly how the term is used, which is why you’re confused, but in a discussion about kefirah, it would sure help to use the term properly.
One could say %@$! (however you’d like to translate that) to nearly or about nearly anyone (perhaps excluding God and Moses) without it being kefirah, so it’s not viable to suggest that one is guilty of kefirah by claiming that R’ Akiva, Rashi, the Tosafists, or most anyone is has exhibiting inferior intellect, misguided extrapolation, etc. You could claim that such as individual is incorrect — but certainly it wouldn’t make them a kofer.
If you ignore science to comply with silly things that Chazal said, why don’t you employ the bloodletting, scorpion mascara and a whole bunch of other ridiculous therapies as mentioned in the 7th chapter of Bavli Gittin. You don’t because they’re ridiculous…that’s why. It seems, then, that you’d be your own kofer. And do you know any nursing females who refrain from watermelon flavored ices? Perhaps you should hang out with them…if you’re in a minyan with their husbands, they’d probably give you an aliyah.
No scientist would ever claim to be infallible, and the fact that anyone would reveals the level of your incomprehension of science. Science is not about being right — it’s about observing, measuring, calculating and making connections.
Hopefully, the gadol who gives you poor medical advise is the same one you ask about reading this blog — this way, you can ignore him consistently.
You are correct, Ken. You are confused.
BTW, it was 6 days, not 7. He rested on the 7th.
What in the universe does it mean he rested, Akiva-nik? It doesn’t mean a thing, because rest is something that some organisms do. But many organisms, like plants, don’t rest in the same way that people do, and neither do machines.
So when we say that God rested, we don’t mean that he needed to refresh, to rejuvenate after a hard week at work. We suggest that, after the description of action, there is a description of inaction. But what does that even mean? What sort of action did God do, and what did he stop doing?
Here you are pretending again. You pretend that you understand God and what it can mean that he rested.
“[It was only] 6 days, not 7. He rested on the 7th.”
He rested from creating. He finished it. Va’yichulu. Stop obfuscating everything. It’s very clear. Everything was created from nothing, in the order it is written, and nobody but you and the rationalist kofrim say otherwise. And if the RamBam says otherwise, include him in that too.
I’m not debating whether the act of resting “created” Shabbat or not. Obviously the 7th day is a cessation of the creative activity of the previous 6. That is seminal and is in many ways the single most important point of the whole perek. I’m with you. 6 days of creation. You, however, are suggesting that pasuk alef is itself a separate act of creation that precedes Yom Echad, the first day. You are claiming that because the yesh meayin concept is so important to you that you are prepared to ignore the text if necessary to maintain the concept. Frankly, that’s fine with me. I recognize that much of Jewish tradition reads that way. Where you and I differ is 1) in the ability to understand the difference between p’shat and d’rash and the possibility–in this case the clear reality–that there is more than one way to read the text in this regard and 2) the ability to understand that the historical development of the yesh meayin concept in Rabbinic Judaism’s understanding of B’reishit is in all likelihood an import from hellenistic philosophy.
So. Do you in fact believe that pasuk alef itself describes an act of divine creation that actually precedes the first Divine Utterance of “yehi or?”
No, I don’t, because it doesn’t say anything of the sort. It says He created, then starts telling what was created. I see no problem there at all. Same as saying “On January 1, I went to work. I got up in the morning, got dressed, etc.” It’s an introduction. No problem.
Right. Precisely. The way you previously wanted to read B’reishit, your example would mean the narrator went to work *before* getting up in the morning and getting dressed. The ‘pasuk’ “On January 1, I went to work,” is, as you say, an “introduction.” Like pasuk alef of b’reishit. The actual “creating” starts with yehi or, not ‘b’reishit bara Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha-aretz.” You tried to read pasuk alef as a separate act of creation because you were desperate to account for yesh meayin creation in the face of the existance of “p’nei hamayim” in the absence of a clear account of any creation of that mayim. Now you quite correctly read it as introductory which brings us back to the point. When B’reishit begins its account of b’riat olam, the water, and the tehom, and the tohu vavohu stuff, already exists.
I don’t understand what you’re saying.
There’s the intro. Then the “story”. The earth was unformed and void, and there was darkness. Im sure some say that darkness was a creation too. If it was, then that was created along with light and void and whatever else. Who says yehi ohr was the first act?
I am basing myself on the mishna in Pirkei Avot that teaches it was with “10 utterances” that God creates the world in B’reishit. It is my contention that one way to carefully read the text is that it actually assumes the existance of water, etc. I am aware that you are not the first to read pasuk alef as an independant act of creation which accounts for the water, etc, but as you have pointed out, it seems its pshat is simply that it is an introductory pasuk. The g’mara reads it that way as well. Shivim panim latorah.
According to the literal understanding of the verses, there was neither sun nor earth, so the earth was absent and could not be ‘void [with] darkness.”
The literal understanding of the verses is not part of our mesorah.
🙂
Wrong. God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was unformed and void. It wasn’t round or square, it was unformed. There was nothing in it or on it, void. There was no light, it was dark. All perfect sense to me.
What is your obsession with watermelons? Are you black or something?
“There was nothing in it or on it. . .” That’s not what the Torah says. The Torah says there was water. You are saying two irreconcileable things. Some days you say, correctly, “Pasuk alef is an introduction, not an action,” other days you say with equal conviction the opposite.
The origins of the stereotype of blacks, watermelon and chicken are unclear, but from my research, it appears as though it was a reference to slaves stealing their masters’ melons as a sign of resistance — the generalization serves as a way to dehumanize blacks. Is that your intention here? I can’t seem to find that mentioned in the ArtScroll…or did you perhaps glean this sentiment from your holy Rav.
And speaking of ArtScroll, why don’t you check out the commentary on the bottom of page 262 in reference to the words “emes v’emunah.” The Chidushei HaRim is quoted to have said that emes — truth — is that which we can know because our senses tell us something is so or because we have compelling evidence to support it. I suppose he’s a kofer as well.
No, actually you are confused. In this post you are simply dodging the questions I put because as usual you are not able to answer. Perhaps if you run to ask your rav what to say you’ll “know?”
Becuz your questions are not questions, they are heretical attacks on Torah, and therefore do not deserve answers. The verses in Genesis are as clear as glass to everyone but you.
Did you even read what I wrote to you above about the Meiri explaining that the sun indeed created on the first day and not the fourth day? Where does it say that in the verses of Genesis? No where! Why does the Meiri feel it necessary to deviate from the text? The same reason why Maimonides says that the days are not days in the real sense, and the same reason why R’ Schachter told me that there was never really a talking snake who wished to cohabit with Eve. You think you need to champion these ideas or face the perilous reality that Judaism is fake — but those are not your only options.
Are chickens more closely related to turkeys than to penguins? Not if they were all created ex nihilo — then chickens are to turkeys as penguins are to condors…all snapped into existence at the same time with all similarities and dissimilarities mere cosmic coincidence (sorry, hashgocha pratis).
You speak about things that you don’t understand, quoting people who also didn’t understand but never claimed to understand — you, however, claim that they did understand but provide no source other than your Rav, who prohibits you from reading Slifkin but permits you to come here and make a fool of him and his ilk.
You again misunderstand the term ‘heresy.’ Go look it up. Have you even said anything new in any of your posts subsequent to the first? I can’t seem to find anything more than, “I am right, you are wrong because I am right and you are a heretic and wrong.” Next you’ll be claiming that those who embarrass others lose their share in the world to come and that Jacob is still alive because he never died.
You may not wear floppy shoes or a rainbow wig, Akiva-nik, but…
The Meiri is a kofer. Hey! I think I’m learning how to do this!
Next you’ll be claiming that those who embarrass others lose their share in the world to come and that Jacob is still alive because he never died.
This is 100% true. To say otherwise is kefira. Your Shachter is a kofer mamash. As are most who come out of YU.
So we either have to accept that every Jewish community except you and your Rav and your tiny cultish community is not actually authentically Jewish or we can consider that maybe it’s you that is lost in the dark. Okey dokey.
Baltimore’s Jewish Ortho community is hardly tiny. This is really simple, but you need to complicate it.
Here are the steps:
1) You have a big question
2) Ask a big Rav/Gadol, whose names are found in the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah
3) Do what they tell you & accept the answers as given.
4) End of problem.
“Baltimore’s Jewish Ortho community is hardly tiny.” The entirety of Baltimore’s Jewish Orthodox community does not embrace your “Haredi” sect.
Attacks on Torah? No, they are defenses of Torah against your “Hareidi” minus.
The answer is…chussids are lush. 😉
DRosenbach: You make some very compelling arguments, and you certainly know your sources backwards and forwards. You are truly gifted. That being said, all the gifted logical arguments in the world are not going to convince me that the world is older than 5771 years, that the Torah Codes are not the Holy messages from God, or that the snake in Eden didn’t walk on 2 legs and talk to Eve, literally. So let’s just call it a day. You have a strong drive to investigate and delve and find out what’s really “true”. I don’t. I get up, go to shul on Shabbos, and whatever my Rav says in his drasha is enough truth to last me until the next Shabbos.
It is because I attempt to perceive Judaism no differently than science or math that I am compelled to think the way I do — it’s because the arguments for the positions I advance are so compelling that I subscribe to them, and they then become my arguments.
If you would, for a moment, step back and ask yourself why you accept certain things in life, you might be able to begin to see the rationale for my position, even if you maintain your disagreement.
For example — the assertion that a snake walked on two legs. Is that in the text of the Five Books of Moses? No. Would something being in the text of the Five Books of Moses make it necessarily so? No — this is undisputed. I don’t have any sources now (I’m in Italy on vacation with my wife) but there is a comment about the walls of the cities being fortified up into the sky (I think in reference to the Land of Canaan whe the spies returned in Shlach) and it’s a complete falsification of reality. But we don’t explain it like that, because no one — not even for a second — takes it literally. Then there are examples of things that, well, could be taken literally, but we know that we are not meant to — such as the comment about the offspring of the Levirate marriage being named after the dead first husband. That’s what the verse says, but that’s not the halacha — check it out in the Minchas Chinuch. These and other examples abound, and we thus know that we cannot trust the text of the FBofM as a standalone — how do we know, then, what to trust? Well, we look in the Talmud. But there are opposing opinions in the Talmud — how do we know what to trust? Usually, the Talmud comes to a conclusion, but sometimes it doesn’t. What do we do then? I must get off the computer now, but suffice it to say that, in the end, we are to trust our rabbis of 2011 — we just have to pick good ones. Anyway, more on this another time.
Oh, btw, the chicken & turkey thing? This is one that really makes me laugh. You and the scientific folks think that because you have 2 creatures that have 99% similarity, this must mean they are somehow related. I see no reason to posit that at all. I think God created each thing individually, “snapped” them all into existence at the same time, and the fact that they are similar is nothing more than coincidence. Maybe He used similar playdough to form an elephant and a mammoth. Doesn’t mean diddly-squat. They were both living at the same time. The mammoth died out, the elephant didn’t. Not because of natural selection or evolution, but because God wanted them to die out. Nothing more, nothing less.
What would you call someone who claimed to disprove and reject Torah who never studied Torah and didn’t understand it? You’d call him ignorant and tell him to go learn. What should we call someone with clearly no understanding at all of modern biology who nevertheless claims to be able to “disprove” it with a few sentences?
That would be a violation of Occam’s razor. Not to say that Occam’s razor always gets us to the correct answer — but without a compelling reason to say otherwise (and a distorted understanding of what is and what is not the mesorah is not to be considered compelling), it’s difficult to do so.
And despite what the Wikipedia article states (because it is largely authored by scientists, mind you), Occam’s razor has nothing to do with science, per se. It’s the law of parsimony, and that applies across the board — the simplest explanation is usually the real explanation. The Torah applies it quite often, but it uses different terminology. Consider the shor mu’ad — rather than suggest multiple rationales for why a given animal gored multiple times, the Talmud chooses a universal application when possible: the ox is a wild ox.
When the FBoM is ambiguous (and it usually is), there are multiple ways one can potentially interpret the verses, and existentially speaking (i.e. in actuality…) there are always multiple versions of what the text is trying to say. For reasons too complex and longwinded to summarize here, let’s just say that, over time, the Akivan approach has been adopted in far greater magnitude and with far greater intensity than the Ishmaelian approach — but that’s no more a testament to its validity than to its popularity.
So before Beis Hillel was accepted unanimously, the laws proulgated by Beis Shammai were actually kept l’halacha by those that followed that stream of thought. Once, however, the law was decided in favor of BH, BS is no longer acceptable in general. But is that the case when it comes to aggada? Apparently, your Rav would say so — that’s why all of this is…how should I put it…kefirah. But not everyone agrees with your Rav. The majority of my rebbeim do not think this way — they state that it is entirely acceptable to maintain views according to R’ Ishmael.
I don’t need to learn about Buddhism to reject it across the board either. Any part of science that contradicts Torah or what our Chazal have said is rejected on its face, without having to hear the ins and outs of it. That is the Torah way and the Jewish way. Your watered down version is a zero. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Naaseh v’Nishma.
See this is one of the things I like about talking to people of other faiths–the contrast often helps one understand one’s own a little bit better. This would seem to be a point of departure between your Harediism and the Jewish religion. As you present it here, Harediism sees no difference between “Buddhism” and “science.” Judaism does–the former is what is called “Avodah Zara” and is forbidden absolutely. The latter is not.
Im not comparing them at all. I’m saying I don’t need to know something in detail to reject it out of hand. Here’s how it works for me. I saw my old high school rebbe in the grocery store. I asked him if he had ever heard of Slifkin, because I had just started his blog myself. He said “Oh, yeah, the zoo guy? He’s a kofer. Stay away from him.” That was all I needed to hear. The decision was made for me.” Daas Torah runs the show, not my opinions or yours.
I understand. That’s how most cults operate. I just find it interesting to compare it with Judaism.
“Any part of science that contradicts Torah or what our Chazal have said is rejected on its face…”
There is no part of science tha contradicts Torah, and Chazal themselves contradict Torah, but that’s Torah, too, isn’t it?
I’m abroad now and don’t have access to internet except for 3 minutes a day, so, unfortunately, I can’t get too involved in this conversation — but this is really an issue of ‘what is mesorah?’ You, as everyone else before they see it all, says that ‘everything i know is the mesorah and everything in the mesorah i know’ — but that’s patently false. Buddhism is not a religion — there is no reference to a god, per se — it is merely a spiritual philosophy, much lie if we get together make a treehouse club and all promise never to get angry and to wash our hands each morning to scare away the evil ‘angry’ spirits and we ea only celery so as to not bring evil into our lives by killing animals.
I’ll have to bring his subject up again when I’m back
You have the monopoly on useful information-aren’t monopolies ielalgl? 😉